More News Media Propaganda

[Ray Zee]

well i think we need to contain him by any means possible. we cant let him grow. the question that needs to be answered is what means do we use. war should be the last resort and used if thats all that will accomplish the task.
basically-- whats the hurry. he cant do any real damage right now.

[John Ho]

North Korea has not invaded another country under the current regime. That's really the issue here with Iraq. You have the same leader who authorized the Kuwait invasion and is looking to get even more powerful weaponry.

With all due respect, how you can't see this in relation to Germany is amazing. Germany was restricted in it's military buildup after World War I by Versailles. When Hitler came to power they defied the treaty and rearmed. The world did nothing. Doesn't this sound exactly like Saddam Hussein and the rest of the world?

I'm not saying war is necessarily the answer right now, but passing endless resolutions and using endless years of diplomacy without at least the credible threat of force sets a poor long term precedent. Part of the reason for invading Iraq now is to dissuade other nations from similar actions in the future.

Imagine in 10 yearsKim Jong Il in North Korea decides he wants to annex South Korea and the U.S. military no longer has a presence there. If Saddam or one of his sons is still in power, Kim Jong Il will know that if he is successful militarily either 1) he will retain control of South Korea or 2) a multinational force will drive his troops back (like Bush I in Desert Storm). Option 1 is good for him. Option #2 is neutral for almost everyone involved (except South Korea will be in shambles). Kim will know that the world community does not have the strength of will to overthrow his regime despite his aggression. So basically he is freerolling; Can't lose, might win. Either he doubles his country's size or things remain as is. Does he care about sanctions? He will live like a King either way.

To go back to Saddam, if we are seriously going to do nothing let's save ourselves the trouble and ask him to sign a contract that he won't invade anyone else or develop WMD but also put in the contract if he does we won't do anything militarily. That's basically what we are doing if we don't credibly threaten him with force. If the UN fails to act it will quickly lose what little relevance it has.

However, if the UN authorizes force and drives Saddam out of power or forces him to disarm openly then it's power and relevance are increased dramatically. And that would be a good thing. That would hopefully set a precedent that no country gets invaded without UN approval. Otherwise, the invading country will have it's government removed from power. This will never happen unless the UN shows it can take decisive actions if this precedent is proken.

[KDF]

"Other countries...Pakistan, China...economics". Not realistic arguments for or against this war. Its about a megalomaniac-psychopath-dictatorship that needs to give up the goods or get out of the way so we can contain the weapons-- not him. Oh, N. Korea?- same deal...we'll get to them too. But S.H. keeps hiding the weapons and naughty stuff and everyone knows it. Today's Powell-address didn't reveal that. He (S.H.)- won't use these weapons on the US any time soon (or Israel for that matter or he'll get dead fast.) The real threat (if anyone has been listening) is these weapons getting into worse hands! They may already be, in which case with the death and mayhem to come, you leftist-pacifist-hippie-pansies will celebrate the world's over-population problem solved!! Rejoice!!-- if you're alive at all. Then you'll stop and lament at the utter devastation and all say together- "Why didn't the President do anything about if he knew these things in advance?" -yes, sounds familiar.
We want the weapons and their components--all of them; not the oil, or his head on a platter-- the weapons! Then we will have some measure of peace for a while. Asking him nicely to: "Hand them over or you'll get a time-out!", hasn't worked for 12 years--now he needs a spanking. IMHO

[Chris Alger]

"Pakistan, except for it's conflict with India, has not fought with any other country under Musharraf."

Then how can you explain US support for Turkey when it invaded Cyprus, Indonesia while it invaded Timor, South Africa while it invaded Namibia, Israel when it invaded and colonized the West Bank? How can you explain support for Iraq while it engaged in its most flagrant act of aggression, the war against Iran? All of these incidents were grotesque violations of international law, roundly condemned by the UN, but supported, sometimes almost exclusively, by the US. (The Timor invasion occurred while President "This Will Not Stand" Bush was director of the CIA).

"But what is your alternative? Overthrow Pakistan as well?"

No. My alternative is for the U.S. to embrace a consistent policy of non-aggression enforced multilaterally with military force being used as a last resort and only to accomplish particular, specific objectives, rather than a blank-check "regime change."

"On the other hand, if you do nothing about Iraq and pretend they are not a threat we will walk down the same path Europe did with Hitler."

Oh, please. Every time someone wants to justify war, they bring up Hitler and the Munich analogy. One size fits all: you just need a dictator and the prospect of war and, voila!, instant justification. Never mind that Hitler couldn't have been deterred by a nuclear superpower with more than a hundred times the amount of military might. Never mind that Iraq has less than 150 seviceable aircraft and a navy that consists of, according to the Center for Strartegic and International Studies, of "six obsolete Osa and Bogomol guided missile patrol craft and three obsolete Soviet inshore minesweepers." Get real.

Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons. Means exist short of war to prevent him from getting them. There is no dispute that many of his other weapons and facilities have been destroyed or deactivated. His potential remaining stockpiles of CBW's are a genuine issue, but that obviously is not what's driving US policy. Indeed, the US and US firms were instrumental in providing Iraq with the technology used to acquire them, but you don't see the political leadership or the media trying to hold anyone accountable for that Moreover, by using WMD as a pretext for invasion, every other country in the world with resources of value to the US would be well-advised to follow N. Korea's example and devleop them as fast as possible, which means that the proposed war with Iraq is actually counterproductive to the cause of limiting the development of WMD.

Do you seriously think Saddam is a threat to the US? If so, then why can't it he even shake off his "no-fly" zone? How can he threaten to invade his neighbors without air support? If he were to invade anyone, how could he avoid having his military and himself being eradicated instantly by the US? If he's such a threat to his neighbors, then why didn't they initiate the call for regime change? Indeed, why do his neighbors have to be brought kicking and screaming (and bribed) into a war process conceived by elite planners in the US? Why was overthrowing Iraq not even a debating point before 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

These are simple questions. If instead of demanding good answers to them you choose to accept the official justification that the US seeks no more than to defend itself and its worthy allies from hypothetical future aggression, then you are the one who's being naive.

[John Ho]

I agree with you in part. The topic of removing Saddam should never have happened. The world should have overthrown his regime during the Gulf War.

But you can see how a lack of action leads to bigger problems in the future. Unless you don't believe the US position regarding the aluminum tubing made to high specifications, you are wrong to believe Saddam is not trying to develop nukes. It is certainly true he tried to develop them before. So the question is again, do you want to take the risk he develops them under the radar or do you remove the threat now?

[Clarkmeister]

That was a damn fine post.

[Glenn]

Hi Chris,

As always your arguements are well thought out, but I think you are making two mistakes.

1. Just because we have supported bad regimes in the past does not make this war wrong. The arguement that we used to support Saddam is not valid. Even if everything else we have ever done is wrong, and our treatment of every other country is wrong, it is completely irrelevant to this case. In Saddam's case the USA wrongly supported him when he used chemical weapons against Iran. Now we say that he shouldn't use chemical weapons. I would venture to say that we are now correct. This mean we should now act upon our correct stance. If there were two terrorists that blew up a bunch of stuff and right before they blew something else up terrorist A realized it was wrong and shot terrorist B, is that wrong of him? Should he let terrorist B carry out his action because of his previously guilty actions? (Note: I am not implying anything about terrorism, I just need an example of people who do "bad" things)

2. The arguement that other countries have done things wrong and have not faced war is of course quite common. The difference is that with Saddam we have exhausted diplomatic means. Everyone says we are rushing to war, but he has been doing this for 10 + years. He kicked the inspectors out years back. Why? Maybe they smell bad. Or maybe he wanted to continue his weapons programs. And why would he want to make these weapons and face embargos etc...? So his people would have better lives? No, so he could terrorize and threaten neighbooring countries. Now we went back and he is of course screwing us around again. Isn't 10 years enough? How much longer should we wait? How do UN resolutions and diplomacy have any validity if you do not eventually back them up? It is like a child whose parents keep threatening to ground him but never do. Eventually, he will just ignore them and do what he wants. Nations are the same way. We need to back up our words with action or they have no validity. We have said for years, do this or we will eventually attack. The UN has supported this. It is time to call him out. People will die and it will be sad. But more people will die if every rouge nation believes that we and our allies are just a lot of talk. War sucks, but without a fear of war, there will be eventually be more war.

Is Saddam going to invade the US? No. Would he give weapons to terrorists? Probably. Is he a threat to his neighbors? Yes. Does this warrant war? Not immediately, but after 10+ years of trying to solve it other ways, it is time for him to go.

I am curious what alternatives you think there are (I don't think you'll say inspections but someone might...so here's a hint...inspections are a ridiculous idea)? That is what is the plan of action if we are not going to attack, and why will countries like Iraq listen to the UN or the US in the future if they see it is all talk?

[hudini36]

He is certainly not naive. He is biased and favors any Islamic interest over the interests of the West, but he is not naive.

[Zeno]

Mr. Alger, this is the start of the fourth paragraph of your post:

"That media's near-exlusive concentration on Iraqi WMD while failing to point out simple, obvious and highly revealing contradictions testifies to the mainstream media's role as a propaganda outlet for the state."

A few sentences later in the same paragraph you make this statement (Italics are mine):


" (1) how can Iraq so directly affect our moral and material interests that slaughtering large numbers of innocent Iraqis is necessary?"


Who is engaging in propaganda now. You condem it in the first part of your paragraph and use it (to good effect, I must add) a few sentences later in the same paragraph.

This does not undermine your overall thesis, but there is the hint of a conflicting bias and moral tone to your post.

The flavor of your propaganda statement is that the war will be fought human vs human with one side completely innocent, the other completely gulity and bent only on one thing. Slaughter. What image does this invoke? A marine shooting at an Iraq soldier that is shooting back; or a marine gunning down a innocent child? I don't think I need to go into other details as you can deduce them on your own.


In addition, your last paragraph is full of very simplistic black and white statements. It is this or nothing etc. Period. Kind of like: It is either us or them or, your either for us or against us. Sound familiar?


-Zeno

[brad]

madeline albright stated on 60 minutes that 1/2 million dead iraqi children was an 'acceptable price to pay for stability in the region'.

lack of potable water, etc. , no medicine, etc. (ie, we bombed all their water treatment plants and then banned import of medicine and stuff).

so its not like we killed the kids. they probably wouldve turned into terrorists anyway. just like those evil jews in concentration camps probably woulve turned into pimps and usurous bankers anyway.