If You're Happy And You Know It, Bomb Iraq
Why Bush Is Right And You Are Wrong
Capital of Nasty Electronic Magazine
Monday, February 17, 2003 (588/124)
ISSN 1482-0471
When U.S. Secretary General Colin Powell finished his presentation to the United Nations about the wrongdoing of Saddam Hussein's regime, many debates started about the validity of his evidence.
While some took the presentation as a clear sign of what the Iraqi leader was doing, others argued that if the United States wanted to provide compelling evidence, it would've been only fair to expose their intelligence gathering capabilities as proof.
Others whined that what was presented did not seem to provide basic information, such as GPS co-ordinates, and of the time shots taken, the quality was dubious. And it's true, when you consider that you can get better quality satellite imaging off of the Internet for free (http://www.spaceimaging.com/).
There are two things people fail to understand in regards to Powell's presentation.
The first is that identifying the means in which information was obtained has several potential risks. To start, it puts those secret agents working for the United States in direct danger from the Iraqi Government. The Government of Iraq has the means and the will to do horrible things to their political opponents. Mentioning the type of information and/or how it was obtained would allow Saddam's regime to track down who the possible traitors were and have them dispatched to the great beyond.
Also, revealing to the world the means of which a country does their espionage means revealing the level of technological advancement their spying techniques are at. When the newspapers reported that United States had been able to track down the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden via his satellite phone, he simply stopped using it.
You also risk the enemy using the systems you've been exploiting to feed you false information rendering your systems useless.
But the real point behind Powell's speech was, aside from obtaining the support from the American population, was to shift the responsibility of proof to Iraq. The United States was expected to justify its actions. Even if the evidence may be considered ridiculous, it shifted the hot potato to Iraq, who now has to prove that what was said is not true.
While it is true that the U.S. Government put Saddam Hussein in power (just like Noriega, the Taliban and Pinochet to name a few) and has the tendency of not minding its own business, look at which countries are arguing the most against American's stand: France, Germany, Russia and China.
France, who only a decade ago did unsanctioned nuclear tests in the Pacific, and despite international protests, sending troops to the Ivory Coast. And of course, despite sanctions on Iraq, they still do business with them.
Germany, the same country that less than half a century ago elected a leader that, had it not been for the might of the United States armed forces, would've made Europe look like Utah.
Then you get Russia and China. The former just recently changed from their original regime of tyranny--and yet tries to make a stand on moral grounds. The latter is a still-living example of imperialism that doesn't seem to have much notion as to what freedom is for either its citizens or countries it currently has occupied.
There seems to be some strong irony--if not downright hypocrisy--that the same countries that are accusing the United States of being imperialistic bullies forcing their actions down the throats of others are the same that displayed various forms of foreign and domestic oppression as well as strong imperialism. America needs their actions to be approved by these guys?
The Unites States doesn't need any type of proof to wage war on Iraq. After all, they still have the receipts to Saddam's arsenals.
Ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen is currently stationed at Twenty-Seventh Air Force Headquarters.
| Tweet |
Comments
4 comments found
| [prev] The Thankless Job of World Domination | { } [next] |
Excellent article. I was in Baghdad,Basra etc.in the 70's,forUNESCO (sorry can't be perfect but one must earn his living). Our western civilisation (Americans in particular created this monster as so many others for contingency. Short term solutions with no real ending. (Afghanistan is another example). It was interesting as I cruised through the war zones,then it was Iraq Iran to checkout armaments. Officers or who though should be officers sported Berettas with pearl handles holstered in the best McCarthy tradiditions.Jeeps were american,artillery courtesy of OtoMelario,Italian but provided under licence from the old South Africa. This in a few incomplete words was the armaments,what more not seen was supplied? And then like in so many cases every thing was let go but no one bothered to sterilise the seeds they had planted. There lies the American problem.They are fighting against their own conscience and what they have sown. Is the farmer guilty for using the seeds you have supplied him. Does war resolve the problem? Is that how you make a field sterile? Yes! But at what price and will they never learn. God is not American and he supports many sides if he exists .God belongs to Islam as well and all of this smells unlawfully like crusades once again. Nobody ever won them but the body counts were high, so why try again.Maybe it is all about oil seeing how many texans are involved.Just thinkingout loud!
An excellent arguement that I take one exception to. The comment
"Germany, the same country that less than half a century ago elected a leader that, had it not been for the might of the United States armed forces, would've made Europe look like Utah".
is offensive to the many nations of the world that rose to fight the tyranny of Hitler and Nazi Germany. That list includes (but is certainly not limited to) Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. While the US did make a pivotal contribution towards the war effort, I find it the height of arrogance to overlook the dead and injured that come from all over the globe. Especially as all of the aforementioned countries rose to fight that evil long before the Americans could be bothered to get involved.
Having said that, I agree with your analysis. The adage "follow the money" is as applicable as always. Once this is all over with, the world will get to see just how deeply France, Germany and Russia are committed in Iraq. Altruism, my ass.
While I agree that this is a far from cut-and-dried situation, I feel that the Bush Administration is making things a little too easy for itself. And forgetting that as the world's suprapower, it holds a unique position in world history as a role model for other countries. Do the Bushies really expect the leaders of "rogue nations" (yeah, that's how you get people to work with you - insult them outright!) to refrain from expansionism, fundamentalism, suppression of public opinion and democracy etc., if we're not willing to do any different? This is definitely a question of practising what you preach, I'd say. Not to mention the precedent of "preemptive action" - if Bush gives himself the go-ahead, who's legitimately going to blame less stable governments (say, Pakistan, India, Korea et al.) for following suit if, or rather when, they feel threatened? The U.S. are at a pivotal point where they can set the international tone for decades, if not centuries, to come. Mr. Bush, remember your true responsibilities. Real security begins at home!
I also take exception to the historical inaccuracy in your article, PFC Wintergreen. Although I personally also find some of the current rhetoric in Germany & France hypocritical and ungrateful (I am an "Air Force Brat" and myself the product of an American/German marriage)and have often tried to straighten the sometimes skewed views of America that some Germans I know have, I beg you not to misrepresent the facts. First of all, Hitler came into power in 1933 - seeing your article is published in 2003, I wonder how 70 years come to constitute "less than half a century ago". And secondly, I purposely say Hitler "came into power". While it is true that the Nazi party was elected into parliament as the largest party fraction in 1932 (as a result of wide-spread economic hardship and ensuing resentment within the largely sub-educated population - which reminds me of the basis of success of a number of "fundamentalist" groups today), it is not true that he gained power by popular vote (remind you of someone?). In fact, his higher-ups tried very hard to keep him down. Unfortunately, he had the luck of timing on his side, not to mention his fatally good understanding of popular psychology/demagogy. Germany had just fairly recently become a democracy, its people were simply not used to the democratic process and the power it potentially gave them to determine their own fate. They were used to being governed "top-down". The upper echelon were respected (aristocratic) but politically weak former military leaders and were real pushovers for someone as goal oriented as AH. And his actual rise to ultimate power was basically a coup - only after all opposing parties were politically and physically forced out of parliament was it possible for this man to be "elected" as the leader of the nation. So while this election might have been "legal", it was certainly not legitimate in the true sense of democracy (once again: remind you of somebody?)
Anyway, while I understand your argument regarding the disclosure of U.S. intelligence gathering methods, I personally believe that George Bush's burning desire to remove Saddam Hussein from power is misled and misleading. The U.S. have much more pressing problems to deal with: Osama bin Laden is possibly still at large (Remember him? DEAD OR ALIVE? When did he become a secondary issue?), the economy is going to pot, along with the environment (Kyoto wasn't perfect, but a start - and who backed out?) and security in the "homeland" (forgive me, but THAT term is VERY Hitleresque!) is dearth. Oh yeah, and then there's that little guy on the other side of the globe who actually HAS "nucular" weapons: Kim Jong Il! But then, he can fire back, can't he? Why should containment work with him, who has now fired on a neighboring country, and not on Saddam, who may be a despot, but has a strong survival instinct and will most likely not do anything soon to provoke action against him? Maybe I'm just dense, but I simply cannot follow the logic of the Bush Administration on this issue! And I know I'm not alone!
Regards,
whichwitch
Fuck off loser.