Friday, July 15, 2005

John Howard of Australia Gets It

Via Instapundit (see my blogroll at left) I learned of this ABC (Australian Broadcasting) interview with Prime Minister John Howard. I can only say that he gets it and the reporter does not. My favorite part:
MAXINE McKEW: Prime Minister, if as you say you can't rule out that possibility that we could have potential bombers right here in Australia, what if today's announcement, this redeployment to Afghanistan and our continued presence in Iraq is all the provocation they need?

JOHN HOWARD: Maxine, these people are opposed to what we believe in and what we stand for, far more than what we do. If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it's also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people.

Update, 7/19/05 10:59 am: Here are two interesting articles that relate not only to what is excerpted above, but to the comment thread of this post.
Understanding Terrorism? Ridiculous
Terrorists and the smell of fear

23 comments:

Delete this said...

I wonder if John Howard understands that there is only a small conncetion with terrorism and Iraq and that since the war began there are more al-Queada present than before? I wonder if he gets the fact that Jesus Christ preached aginst his idea of the weak and the stong (that whole turn the other cheek thing). I wonder if he gets that the war in Iraq and the mistreatment of prisoners has only helped to fuel the desire of the "fanatics" to attack more fervently and even added to their total numbers. Does he get that even the U.S. administration has conceded to no link between al-Queada and Iraq? I wonder how many in the U.S., Australia, G.B. and other allies in the "Coalation of the willing" get that the war in Iraq has no links, that the war has fueled more hatred, and that thousands of innocent Iraqis and U.S. (& Ally) soilders have dies needlessly. I wonder if Howard got it when he realized Sadaam was evil but that so was Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia--you know, places that have weapons (or the capabilities) and can actually do harm to the U.S. Australia, and theeir allies.

Darren said...

A few points, Progressive Pete.

1. Iraq and Afghanistan are much more "progressive" today than they were on September 11, 2001. Or don't you agree?
2. No one ever claimed a link between Saddam and 9/11, but there's plenty of evidence about a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda and the support of global terror. See my previous post on Zarqawi.
3. I take it you now support military action against Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia? And if not, what was the rationale for your statement about their potential weapons?
4. Your "turn the other cheek" comment was as stupid as it was disingenuous. I doubt Christ would have us just keep allowing people to fly airplanes into buildings, blow up trains or subways or busses, etc, and do nothing about it.

Delete this said...

1. Iraq and Afghanistan are much more "progressive" today than they were on September 11, 2001. Or don't you agree?

No, I do not agree! Death, no matter how you spin it, is not progressive.
However, I agree with the war in Afghanistan, but not a war in Iraq that takes away resources in Afghanistan.

Here are some articles for you:
Afghanistan - Taliban terrorists kill Afghan 10 police officers
AFP via Babelfish translation | July 10, 2005

Afghanistan: 10 killed police officers, including 6 decapitated by supposed talibans
KANDAHAR (Afghanistan) - Six Afghan police officers were found decapitated and four others were killed Saturday by rebels talibans supposed after a confrontation in the south of Afghanistan, announced to Sunday the chief of the police force of the borders of the district of Dishu, Mohammed Rasoul.
Sixteen police officers had been reported missing for Saturday morning after the attack from their convoy, which carried out a patrol of routine, by rebels supposed talibans, indicated to AFP Mr. Rasoul.
If six of them were found alive, "four others were killed at the time of the engagements, and six others were found later decapitated and with their head posed on their chest", in this area where the antigovernment rebellion (talibans and other movements) is active, it added.

Or

The unending war against the Taliban
Jun 23rd 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda (http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4109197)

Afghan troops have launched a big assault on Taliban insurgents, who they fear are regrouping to attack September’s parliamentary elections. Almost four years after the American-led invasion, Afghanistan still looks far from pacified. European countries are sending more troops, while Afghanistan’s government accuses Pakistan of harbouring the rebels . . .
. . . More troops needed. President Vladimir Putin of Russia complained this week that the American-led force in Afghanistan was proving ineffective at battling the Taliban and that terrorist training camps continued to operate there. Mr Putin fears that Islamist rebels in the breakaway Russian republic of Chechnya are still being sent for training in the Afghan camps. Indeed, an Afghan official said on Thursday that at least two of the insurgents killed in the battle in south-western Afghanistan may have been Chechens.
There is certainly an argument for reinforcing the 20,000 mainly American troops who are helping Afghan forces hunt the insurgents. But given the even deadlier insurgency in Iraq (see article), there is at least as strong an argument for boosting troop levels there—and America’s military is already over-stretched.



2. No one ever claimed a link between Saddam and 9/11, but there's plenty of evidence about a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda and the support of global terror. See my previous post on Zarqawi.

Check out what a Republican Senator said as recent as June 29, 2005: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/17/185436/985)
March 21, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.
These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.
As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
The Press Secretary made similar claims, Cheney made similar claims, and so did Powell. Now the current line is that there is no link, yet the President evokes 9/11 continuously as he seeks support for continued action in Iraq.
Darren: please read the news and pay more attention.

3. I take it you now support military action against Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia? And if not, what was the rationale for your statement about their potential weapons?

The rationale for the statement is that if the U.S. decides to enforce a policy of preemption against hostile nations, terrorist nations, or nations that harbor terrorists, then why we have not attacked the countries that actually have links to terrorism or actually have weapons or the ability to develop weapons is irrational.

I do not want war in Korea, because that may spark a conflict with China. A U.S. war in Korea would have the same results as any one trying to invade Mexico: The northern neighbor would be pissed! Korea must be dealt with and I believe our best hope is to ease relations with China and hope the control Korea just as the U.S. eased relations with the USSR and had them control China early on. As for Iran, we don't need to, G.B. and Israel are hyped up for that one! However, I do not believe a war in Iran is necessary, they did not decide to explore weapons proliferation until the Bush administration pulled out of the AICBM treaty! We need to dump U.S. preemption policy that encourages arms build-up! As for Saudi Arabia I know better than to expect our administration to attack a country in which everyone associated with it has investments (oh, they have banks in Korea too!).

4. Your "turn the other cheek" comment was as stupid as it was disingenuous. I doubt Christ would have us just keep allowing people to fly airplanes into buildings, blow up trains or subways or busses, etc, and do nothing about it.

Would he? Would he say that the thing to do about it is to wage a war against a country (Iraq) and kill thousands of innocent people and endanger thousands of more soldiers when that country is far less a threat and not as connected to the flying of airplanes into buildings, blowing up trains, or subways or busses, etc. Hell, Israel has more in common with the actions than Iraq, should we invade our little Jewish friends? I mean, we are doing nothing about it.

You calling my comments disingenuous (dishonest, hypocritical, or insincere), as well as stupid, probably has more in common with Christ's message and the attitude of his followers and best describes the rationale of Christians who react to things they don't like to hear than anything I could try to relate. Thanks!

Christians Rock!

Edward said...

A consequence of Howard's argument is that the terrorists attack France and Germany more viciously than they attack the US or the UK. After all, both France and Germany have adopted appeasement as their official policies, have they not? So, are France and Germany more viciously attacked, or not?

Darren said...

Progressive Pete, if you truly believe that Iraq and Afghanistan are *not* more "progressive" today than they were in 2001, you negate any sense of humanity in my eyes. What were Cromwell's words to the Rump Parliament?

Edward, you're smarter than the argument presented. Please try again.

Delete this said...

Wow, you have amazed me for I am at a loss for words and I am never at a loss for words! But I will fight it and give you some anyways. Sure, Afghanistan is more "progressive" today than it was in 2001. But that is like saying that Abu Ghraib is more progressive than Stalin's Gulag or that Labor Camps are more progressive than Death Camps! I guess you win that one! Whew! Blew me away, baby! I mean my concerns for the life quality for Afghans is a waist of time for its all peaches and roses I guess! Dang, there goes my sense of humanity! I thought I was doing so well.

And with the Cromwell thing, first I am surprised you know some history, second, which I am not surprised at, are you telling me I must go? Are you expelling me? Are you that democratic in heart and open to discussion? What was it that Voltaire said about disagreeing with others?

Do ask Edward to try again because you can not answer him? Be ready with an answer, right. Is that not what the precious Peter told us?

Hint: Don't try shy off-handed quote references, it's not your thing. Oh, did you yet look at my post to your slavery/democrats posting? You, sir, have no reason, ability, or talent for using history or its context for you are showing large signs of being very ignorant of it! I promise not to teach math!

Darren said...

1. This blog isn't democratic. It's *mine*. I'm a benevolent dictator, and tolerate your disagreement only because you're civil and show attempts at logical thought. Your second to last sentence, though, pushes the limits.
2. "[S]hy, off-handed quote references" *are* my thing, actually :-)
3. Gulags and death camps, huh? Who are you, Durbin-lite?
4. Saying I have "no reason, ability or talent for using history" is pretty elitist, don't you think, Mr. History Professor? Or do you think? I don't need to be a history professor to know history or to use it. If I draw different lessons from it than you do, I credit that to different viewpoints, not different levels of intelligence. But then again, I'm not a member of the intelligentsia, am I? Of course not, no conservative could be, right?
5. I do read the news, and I do pay attention. I just think about it critically instead of thinking whatever CNN or Daily Kos or Atrios or Democratic Underground tell me, Pete. By the way, do *you* think Judith Miller is in jail to protect Karl Rove? Hehe.

Edward said...

Darren,

I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than that you don't agree. Would you care to just go ahead and poke whatever hole you have in mind in my short argument, and then I can respond?

Darren said...

They haven't attacked the Swiss either. Then again, the Swiss haven't done too much for world security. And the French have already arrested people planning attacks on the Eiffel Tower.

What is your point, Edward? That they'd go away if we did nothing? This fight is on, and I see no appeasement strategy working. Appeasement never has.

Delete this said...

1. This blog isn't democratic. It's *mine*. I'm a benevolent dictator, and tolerate your disagreement only because you're civil and show attempts at logical thought. Your second to last sentence, though, pushes the limits.

I am glad to see you embrace your republican roots and stay true to dictatorship—in the blood, 'eh? I am sad, however, to see such claims coming from such a devoted patriot of the American Way. Oh well, sell out Democracy when it suits you I guess. The "show attempts at logical thought" thing is just cute. You are consistent I must give you that. God must be proud!

2. "[S]hy, off-handed quote references" *are* my thing, actually :-)

Find a better one.

3. Gulags and death camps, huh? Who are you, Durbin-lite?

Waiting for an answer still.

4. Saying I have "no reason, ability or talent for using history" is pretty elitist, don't you think, Mr. History Professor? Or do you think? I don't need to be a history professor to know history or to use it. If I draw different lessons from it than you do, I credit that to different viewpoints, not different levels of intelligence. But then again, I'm not a member of the intelligentsia, am I? Of course not, no conservative could be, right?

Some one is sure sensitive! You draw so many negative conclusions that I'd hate to be a student in your class who didn't understand a problem. History is interpretation. The past is prologue, etc. However, you have failed to use historical context in such a thing as slavery and that is dangerous. To believe the Democratic or Republicans are the same as in times past is not in keeping with the best perception or interpretations. And, wow, I've never been accused of being part of the intelligentsia! Cool! Thanks! Having a background in history and an understanding of its fuller context of course gives me an edge in interpreting history over a high school math teacher just as you have the edge in long division. Accusations of elitism are probably more understood in your insecurities for not identifying yourself as part of the intelligentsia, but I do not know, I never meet you. You may be the brightest guy in the world as far as I know but you recent postings are not in your favor. Sure you could more accurately interpret history than I, but would you want to bet that you could hit a farther homerun than Barry Bonds? I mean it could happen. Many conservatives are part of the "intelligentsia" you just are not on track to be one.

5. I do read the news, and I do pay attention. I just think about it critically instead of thinking whatever CNN or Daily Kos or Atrios or Democratic Underground tell me, Pete. By the way, do *you* think Judith Miller is in jail to protect Karl Rove? Hehe.

Are you a critical thinker or just critical? Judith Miller was the best thing for this Administrations war hype; you should be thanking her for false reporting!

Oh, as for the democratic underground—first I thought, as you said in your slavery post, "I read from a wide spectrum of viewpoints." My bad, sorry! Apparently you only do that when it fits your argument.

Edward said...

They haven't attacked the Swiss either. Then again, the Swiss haven't done too much for world security. And the French have already arrested people planning attacks on the Eiffel Tower.

Germany and Switzerland are admittedly better examples. After all, we all know about the French massacres in Algeria that weren't that long ago. The point is, if you followed Howard's thinking, the jihadis would have sensed France's or Spain's weakness and increased their attacks in order to solidify their victory. While the attacks on France have not been zero, they have certainly not increased. The whole line of thinking where jihadis are compared to Nazi Germany is absurd, anyway. Nazi Germany was one of the major industrial powers in the world, with the will and capability to invade and hold on to a significant chunk of Europe. The jihadis are hopelessly outgunned on all sides, even in their own countries.

The Swiss may not have done much bombing in favor of world security, but you have to have your head in the sand to think it's clear enough that US bombing has increased world security to state such a thing in such a matter-of-fact manner. The Swiss did not overthrow a non-fundamentalist democracy in Iran. The Swiss do not and did not sponsor or otherwise support despotic regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, and Pakistan. The Swiss do not have people standing on the floor of their own legislature quoting the Bible to justify Israel pushing mass numbers of Palestinians off their land. Why should anyone outside the American conservative echo chamber take you seriously if you have to pretend that the US hasn't done any of these things, either, in order to make your points?

What is your point, Edward? That they'd go away if we did nothing?

That they would lose much of the support they have if we stopped bending the Muslim world over a table.

This fight is on, and I see no appeasement strategy working. Appeasement never has.

The word "appeasement" does not apply in this context. That would be like someone in Imperial Japan saying, no, we can't withdraw our troops from China, because appeasement doesn't work. The other side has to be the aggressor for the word to apply.

Darren said...

Nothing--let me say again, NOTHING--excuses or justifies flying airplanes into buildings, shooting children, blowing up buses and trains, beheading innocents, etc. You can say all you want that you're just "explaining", but that doesn't work for me. No excuse. We weren't bombing the Muslims when they flew airplanes into the WTC buildings. I guess you could count our enforcement of the No-fly Zone over Iraq, but Saddam agreed to that as part of the cease fire in Gulf War I.

These jihadists aren't too smart. They want us out of the Arab world--looks like we're a *lot* more there now than before they flew airplanes into buildings. I don't view us as the aggressor here, Edward. Just a different point of view.

The Moslems want to go back to the Crusades? Well, Christianity pre-dates Islam by over 600 years. So *they* took over Christian territory before my ancestors fought to get it back. History is not on their side in that argument or any other.

Edward said...

Nothing--let me say again, NOTHING--excuses or justifies flying airplanes into buildings, shooting children, blowing up buses and trains, beheading innocents, etc. You can say all you want that you're just "explaining", but that doesn't work for me. No excuse.

It's no more an excuse than the availability of bomb-making materials is an excuse. Both of those thing are, however, causes.

But no, you want to dismiss whatever I say by claiming I'm a terrorist sympathizer. They actually hate our freedoms. Gee, I've never heard that before...

We weren't bombing the Muslims when they flew airplanes into the WTC buildings. I guess you could count our enforcement of the No-fly Zone over Iraq, but Saddam agreed to that as part of the cease fire in Gulf War I.

In the second paragraph in the post above, I did not mention anything about no-fly zones. Nor did I mention anything that started on or after 9/11/2001, with the exception of support of Pakistan.

These jihadists aren't too smart. They want us out of the Arab world--looks like we're a *lot* more there now than before they flew airplanes into buildings.

There are some documents that have surfaced that I initially didn't know what to think of, but Michael Ledeen of National Review appears to be taking them at face value. Considering my audience, I might as well do the same.

Up until 9/11, the US had been opposing jihadis in a more passive, much cheaper, but nonetheless totally effective manner. Their goal in carrying out large bombings that get lots of press coverage is to draw the US into occupying Muslim countries, where they can then fight the US in a war of attrition with the eventual possibility of US defeat and withdrawal by means of bankruptcy. The jihadis could easily go on in Iraq the way they are now for another ten years. Their hope is that the US goes bankrupt before then.

I think it's a dumb strategy, since the US deficit has much more to do with the Bush tax cuts than the war in Iraq, but whatever. Who knows what their real strategy is. They weren't born yesterday, though, and the probability that their strategy is actually to frighten the West into submission is almost zero.

Edward said...

When I say "totally effective," I mean they were prevented from acheiving their broad political goals. It was not effective in marginalizing them.

Delete this said...

The list below presents some specific incidents of U.S. policy in the Middle East. The list minimizes the grievances against the United States in the region because it excludes more generalized long standing policies, such as U.S. backing for authoritarian regimes (arming Saudi Arabia, training the secret police in Iran under the Shah, providing arms and aid to Turkey as it ruthlessly attacked Kurdish villages, etc.). The list also excludes many actions of Israel in which the United States is indirectly implicated because of its military, diplomatic, and economic backing for Israel.


1947-48: U.S. backs Palestine partition plan. Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.

1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.1

1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.

1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.

1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S. does not support invasion, but the involvement of its NATO allies severely diminishes Washington's reputation in the region.

1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve "stability".

early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.2

1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.3

1967 : U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.

1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. discuss intervening on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.

1972: U.S. blocks Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel.

1973: Airlifted U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.

1973 75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."4

1975: U.S. vetoes Security Council resolution condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.5

1978 79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.6

1979 88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979.7 Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid.

1980 88: Iran Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.

1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and U.S. shoots down two Libyan planes. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing three, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.8

1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon,9 killing some 17 thousand civilians.10 U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self defense. U.S. vetoes several Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion.

1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war, including bombardment by USS New Jersey. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine barracks.

1984: U.S. backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.11

1987-92: U.S. arms used by Israel to repress first Palestinian Intifada. U.S. vetoes five Security Council resolution condemning Israeli repression.

1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.

1988: U.S. vetoes 3 Security Council resolutions condemning continuing Israeli occupation of and repression in Lebanon.

1990 91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted.12 To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.13

1991 : Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S. ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of State) declares that "the price is worth it."14

1991-: U.S. forces permanently based in Saudi Arabia.

1993 : U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.15

1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.

1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. Evidence for the chemical warfare charge widely disputed.16

2000-: Israel uses U.S. arms in attempt to crush Palestinian uprising, killing hundreds of civilians.


Notes

1. Douglas Little, “Cold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945 1958,” Middle East Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, Winter 1990, pp. 55 57.

2. Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA, New York: Knopf, 1979, p. 130.

3. Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, New York: Harperperennial. 1999, p. 74; Edith and E. F. Penrose, Iraq: International Relations and National Development, Boulder: Westview, 1978, p. 288; Hanna Batatu, The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, Princeton: Princeton UP, 1978, pp. 985 86.

4. U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Intelligence, 19 Jan. 1976 (Pike Report) in Village Voice, 16 Feb. 1976. The Pike Report attributes the quote only to a “senior official”; William Safire (Safire's Washington, New York: Times Books, 1980, p. 333) identifies the official as Kissinger.

5. UN Doc. # S/11898, session # 1862. For a full list of U.S. vetoes in the Security Council on Middle East issues, along with full text of the draft resolutions, see the compilation by David Paul at http://www.salam.org/policy/veto.html.

6. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977-1981 (New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1983), pp. 364-64, 375, 378-79; Gary Sick, All Fall Down: America's Tragic Encounter with Iran (New York: Penguin, 1986), pp. 147-48, 167, 179.

7. Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76.

8. See the sources in Stephen R. Shalom, Imperial Alibis (Boston: South End Press, 1993, chapter 7.

9. Ze'ev Schiff, "Green Light, Lebanon," Foreign Policy, Spring 1983.

10. Robert Fisk, "The Awesome Cruelty of a Doomed Poeple," Independent, 12 Sept. 2001, p. 6. Fisk is one of the most knowledgeable Westerners reporting on Lebanon.

11. UPI, “Afghan Airliner Lands After Rebel Fire Hits It,” NYT, 26 Sept. 1984, p. A9.

12. See, for example, Barton Gellman, "Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond Purely Military Targets," Washington Post, 23 June 1991, p. A1. See also Thomas J. Nagy, "The Secret Behind the Sanctions," Progressive, Sept. 2001.

13. Cockburn and Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, chap. 1.

14. Cockburn and Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, chap. 5. Albright quote is from CBS News, 60 Minutes, 12 May 1996.

15. On the dubious nature of the evidence, see Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, Nov. 1, 1993.

16. See Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, Oct. 12, 1998.

Darren said...

Progressive Pete: so what's your point? That these people are justified in flying airplanes into buildings, blowing up trains and buses and subways, and beheading innocent civilians?

*That* is the point. There is no *justification* for what they do, your apologetics notwithstanding.

Delete this said...

Wow, did you take that as the point?!

Rethink it! It'll come to you.

Darren said...

No, thank you. I'll not put any more thought into trying to understand your view. It makes no sense, and I'll just have to accept that.

And your snarkiness is *not* welcome.

Delete this said...

I guess I won't get that coffee! Ouch! Why do you hate me and my ideology? Why such hostility? What do you do to a student you catch cheating? What do you do to a student who disagrees with you? What about your friends? This snarkiness you accuse me of is perhaps just another way to demean my views and for you to escape having to justify yours!

Delete this said...

2:19 am, huh? Grading papers I am sure!

Darren said...

Wow, defensive. Who says I hate you? I do disagree with your views, though, there's no doubt about that. But I can do so from a position of calm and rational explanation, not rudeness.

Civility, Progressive Pete. It's a wonderful trait to have. Those who demonstrate it here are welcome, even when they disagree. Those who do not are *not* welcome.

To answer your questions:
1. I don't hate you. I don't even know you. I don't agree with your ideology, though. It's never in the history of the planet been shown to create a viable society.
2. Students who cheat are dealt with according to our school policy, which includes my filling out of a Breach of Academic Integrity report and forwarding it (and the student) to the vice principal. That student will also fail the assignment and get their citizenship grade lowered.
3. Students are free to disagree with me. In fact, the majority of my students who read and comment on this site are my lefties! And they do so with civility, which is how I respond to them.
4. When my friends and I disagree on something, we disagree. Big deal. We don't all have to think alike to be friends. Diversity, and all that.
5. Snarkiness refers to the way you present yourself, not the views you present. I feel no compulsion to defend my views to you--this is my site, and I express my views as I see fit. When I choose to respond to you, it's to allow other readers to see the other (correct!) side of the debate so they can make their own decisions about who is right and who is wrong. When I opt not to respond to you, it's usually because I think your facts or your presentation are *so* lacking that their presence here is enough to buttress what I have already said, or at least they discredit you to the point where I need say nothing.

We can still have that coffee, but I'll have either tea or hot chocolate.

Ed said...

What an unbelievable jackass you are, Darren.

You claimed we hadn't done anything to Muslims before 2001. Progressive Pete posted a long list of such things to fill you in. Therefore he's a terrorism supporter?

Darren said...

Calling me a jackass crosses the line of civility. Please do not do it again on my blog.

I didn't claim we hadn't "done anything" to Mustlims before 9/11. I said we weren't bombing them. As for things we've "done" do Muslims, what a specious argument. We rescued Muslims in Gulf War I, and belatedly rescued more Muslims in Bosnia. Those are fairly recent by historical standards.

I saw a Muslim burn an American flag on tv. Am I now justified to go blow up some "Muslim building" somewhere? That argument holds no water, and couldn't even in a rainstorm.

John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, recently had to point out to a (not-so-bright) reporter that "the Muslims" are ticked at Australia in part because of their support for the independence of East Timor. The Bali attack was widely viewed as being against Australians--when exactly did that occur, in relation to the Iraq War?

Edward, you and Progressive Pete may not be terrorist sympathizers in that you agree with their tactics. But the fact that you try to excuse, explain, and justify their activities certainly allows for such a belief in those of us who do not.