The longest post. Ever.
My thoughts on the war, the political state of the world, and the general bullshit we are all faced with these days.

I hope you will read all that I've written. I then hope you will research the facts on your own and come to your own educated opinion on the matter as opposed to 'absorbing' the views of friends, family, colleagues, as I'm afraid so many people tend to do. Too many people will give you a blank stare if you ask them to state the facts behind their opinion. "Bush Sucks". Why?

"Well, that's the word on the skreet, yo.. So Bush Sucks!"

This is quite a historic moment in time and, hopefully, we will not be faced with such a hard decision on a global level again in our lifetimes.

I understand my viewpoints may be the voice of a minority here on LJ.

Don't flame me, don't get all bent out of shape, we're all entitled to our opinions, and God knows there is a huge divide in opinions, not just in our country but around the world. Best of all, we live in a free society where we can voice these opinions (and dissent, as the case may be). So respect my point of view as I respect yours. With that, read on, and I invite you to share your viewpoints as well. If anything I've said makes sense, feel free to pass the info on. I don't have massive exposure to friends lists like many of you. :-)



I, like many Americans, have been riding the fence on this issue for a long time. I still sway back and forth on the topic, to be honest. But every time I weigh the fact, I seem to come back to the same view: Hussein IS a threat, and something will have to be done sooner or later. We're already in a position to do something NOW, so let's do it and be done with it.

Now, as I said, I've been on the fence. I say this because there are pros and cons to what is going on. Pros and cons puts it lightly. What happens over the next few weeks and months may change our country, WILL change the way other countries view us, and WILL have bearing on the effectiveness of the US on the world stage. Due to the gravity of the decisions we will make (or have already made) this is a defining moment for the US/UK and their reputation. I'll try to list point/counterpoint, which is really the issues I've weighed and why I really jump back and forth to pro/con on the actions we're taking.

First off - Disarmament.
it is entirely apparent Hussein does not want to disarm. He claims not to have
any weapons - until they are found, and then he gives some lame reason as to why they were not declared. For instance - Anthrax and VX. They claim to have dug a hole in the desert and dumped everything into it. No documentation on what or how much was destroyed, we'll just have to take his word for it. This is a lame excuse and no one buys it. They are NOT cooperating with the UN inspections, and I don't see how anyone can say they have been. Saddam has learned the UN game - Give them just enough information to shut them up and give the appearance of cooperation. It's worked for 12 years, why stop now?

Second - Imminent Threat.
Saddam obviously has a deep hatred for us (more specifically our Gov't or 'The West' in general). This is apparent in his daily rhetoric, the hatred for the west that is integrated into their school system, attempted assasination of a previous president, etc etc. Do I believe he has nukes sitting on an ICBM pointed at us? No. He doesn't have weapons that could reach the US by military weaponry alone. Do I believe he could easily hand off some poison gas or explosives to Terrorists? Absolutely. He may not share the same views as Al Qaeda, but damned if they both wouldn't love to see the West fall. We didn't share the same views as the Mujahadeen when they were fighting
the USSR but that didn't stop us from helping them against a common 'enemy'. (Nor did it stop them from accepting our weapons.) In all honesty I don't think Iraq has nuclear material, or are advanced enough to provide that to someone who can use it against us. But then again, what do 'we' really know what they do/do not have? I'm more worried about the gases or explosives that could easily be smuggled in to our (ANY) country.

Third - Motivation. Why are we doing all of this? Due to the threat. Many like to throw in the fact that we're liberating Iraq. Well.. I think that's a little bit of bullshit mixed with fact.
Liberating the Iraqi people is a by-product of what will happen. That's not the real reason we're doing this, but it's certainly something good that will come out of it. I have a real problem with us making the first move, too.. We've never initiated military action first. But shouldn't we?
Should we wait until there are massive deaths in a NYC subway because someone used nerve gas? In that same vein, if we knew Al Qaeda had the will, the means and the plan to hit us on 9/11, shouldn't we have done something about it then? If we did, we'd be faced with the same situation we currently find ourselves in: How can you attack them when they haven't done anything to you (yet)?

I am also a bit tired of the conspiracy theorists or those who believe there's something much more sinister in what's going on. I shall address these here:

1) This is about the oil. Please. At first I thought the same thing.. but questions arose and I find myself doubting that excuse. If you want oil, what's the cheapest way to get it? You BUY it. Do you think we've shipped half our military to Iraq's border for this? Are we risking our necks over oil? Do you think we're spending over $100 billion to do this so we can get Oil?
I'm no economist, but that doesn't sound like the most cost-effective way to get your hands on oil. And it's not like we're going to stick a flag on the oil fields and claim them as US property. It's already been made quite clear that the oil fields are the property of Iraq. Profits from the oil will help rebuild Iraq. And besides - we ALREADY GET Iraqi oil. In fact we're one of the largest purchasers of Iraqi oil. It's called the "OIL FOR FOOD" program, and has failed miserably because Hussein would prefer to build large palaces, military programs, and feed his military as opposed to
giving it to his people who need it the most. And finally - if it REALLY was about the oil - we have our own massive oil fields in Alaska. If it was really about the oil, wouldn't it be easier to do arm-twisting here at home to open up those fields, rather than going to war over someone else's oil fields with no promise of positive results?

2) This is about big business, Bush and Cheney Of all the conspiracy issues, this I could buy into most of all. I tend not to believe it though. A bit of background - Bush is an oil man - his family has been in the oil business since it was a business. Cheney is a weapons man. He's been CEO of Halliburton, a major weapons manufacturer. Some claim he is behind this push for war. The more bombs we drop the more money his company (and others) will make. Well - I suppose that could be true.
But I don't think Cheney is a moron. If he really wanted to make money for his old company, would he put the administration's neck on the line? Would he put America's reputation on the line? It seems to me if that was his intent, a safer alternative would be to simply increase military spending, sell more weaponry to our allies, etc. Businessmen don't like taking major risks. Why would he risk his reputation, our reputation, our economy, American leadership and the state of global affairs in order
to pad the already heavy pockets of his old company? By the way, several investigation into his relationship with Halliburton have proven inconsequential and totally legit, much to the chagrin of several Democrats.

3) Bush has a grudge to settle Well, who can blame him? They did try and off his daddy. Again, is that something worth risking the lives of our soldiers for that reason alone? It may count towards Bush's determination in getting rid of Saddam, but not the underlying REASON.

4) The US is waging war against ISLAM Everyone reading this (I hope) knows that to be, once again, Bullshit. However, go to a muslim country and ask them that. Perhaps you can weigh this against the previous three items and appreciate the fact that facts can be loosely tied together to come to the wrong conclusion.


I'm not a die hard Bush fan. But from what I've learned about him, I back him up on this. As president, he's privy to alot of information we will never hear about. You have to put a little faith in someone who's in charge of YOUR safety. I don't buy into the bullshit. He's not perfect, in fact there are some rather large blemishes in his past. He's not a good at speeches either, but a good speaker does not necessarily make a good leader. Bill Clinton, Master of All Bullshitters, is an excellent public speaker but that didn't make him a great leader, now, did it?
Granted, Bush could have handled a few things differently, to be sure. He also wasn't counting on having to deal with Terrorist attacks and other threats of 'ill-intent' during his presidency, he's doing a good job considering.

THE UN
A few months ago, I was with the opinion of most - that we need to do this through the UN. Who are we to take this upon ourselves? I for one am tired of America being the global police force, making sure everyone behaves. I thought that's what the UN was for. A premier source of law, order, and a body that had the authority AND INTEREST in protecting the people of the world. Surely, in good time, the world body (or at least the security council) would see that Saddam is making little attempt to disarm, does not WANT to disarm. Surely the world body would not fall for the same ploys
he's been using over the past 12 years.

As you may know, I work from home, which means I can (and DO) keep the news on quite a bit. I have watched more UN proceedings than many of you will probably see in your lifetime. I have seen damning evidence get brushed aside, I have seen blatant disregard for what is right and wrong, and I have seen countries display only their self-interest in the debates. I no longer have respect for the UN - it is merely a public forum for countries to spout bullshit and pass empty laws that they won't stand up to. I now doubt the effectiveness of the UN when it comes to certain matters.
Yes, the UN is a great body to organize human aid for starving countries, to streamline the research for AIDS and other epidemics.. but when it comes to making hard-line decisions, they can't get their shit together. If the UN was all about the right thing to do, countries on the security council would not be asking "WHat will you give us for your vote?" What is right, people? Why do we need to give fucking Angola billions of dollars for their vote? Why did Russia want authorization
to start military action in the "Stans" (and billions more $ in aid) in trade for a vote in favor of us? Should it not be a matter of the best interest for the world community? Again, it is only self-interest that motivates the members of the UN, NOT what should be done. Further on the UN: The US is currently the ONLY world power. Would it not be in certain country's interest for the US to be weakened by going it alone? Like, oh, say, China and Russia? Wouldn't it be nice for France to see the US
weakened in a diplomatic sense? That was always their claim to fame. What about Mexico? They're on the security council, and didn't want to vote with us either. Strange how things were going well with Mexico until 9/11, and then Bush reneged on a huge immigration policy with Mexico. This really ruffled Vicente Fox's feathers. He's been pissed about that since it happened. Now we see that, because we didn't scratch his back, he won't scratch ours. And why is it that Libya is the head of the UN Council for Human Rights? Libya, a country that blew up a Pan Am flight over Scotland? Why is it that the US was thrown OFF the Human Rights committee? Why is it that SYRIA is on the Security Council, when they host and are friendly towards terrorist groups? The UN looks more and more dysfunctional as time goes on.
I think the UN CAN do good in certain respects, but the future of the UN as a world authority looks particularly grim. Look at past military action... When Clinton decided to send troops to the Balkans, we did that alone. The UN, more specifically France and Russia, threatened to veto any resolution allowing troops to intervene there. Should we have done nothing because the UN wouldn't allow it or
would not act upon it? Where was the UN when millions were dying or starving in West Africa, due to a tyrant there? (But then again, where was the US? And then again, isn't that what the UN was for?)

Funny, too, how this issue MUST be resolved in the UN - but when it comes to the topic of North Korea and their recent proliferation, the world body thinks the US should address that issue by themselves, WITHOUT UN intervention. Rumors leaked that Bush may pull us out of the UN after this war. That may be a good idea. It will certainly save us money, as we alone pay 1/3 of the total UN bill.

FRANCE France. Fucking France. I hope they're happy with the hole they've dug themselves. It's so deep and full of shit it will be a long time before they can climb out of it. You know, alot of people keep saying this about America wanting oil and contracts with Iraq. Well guess what?
France (and Russia) are DEEPLY invested in the current regime in Iraq. France has many oil contracts, many business deals with Iraq. Russia also has a hand in their oil and military equipment. If something happens to Iraq as it is now, that's financial loss and puts an economic hurt on them. Who's acting in their own interest here?
Let it also be said that France sold Iraq the knowledge to use nuclear power which was immediately transferred to making nuclear weaponry. Israel nipped that in the bud early on, thank God. But we can always thank the French for handing out nuclear know-how like it was a 2 day old baguette. France also has other motives in all of this. Take the European Union. They want to be the center of attention, so to speak. They want to be the ones 'in charge' that the other european nations look up to. This was Chirac's chance to stand up and be seen as 'the european leader'.. they sure
as hell tried to strong-arm other countries into seeing things 'their way', threatening to block non-EU countries from joining the EU. France has stood in the wy many times... Denying overflight rights when we went to bomb Khaddafi in Libya, threatening vetoes on many articles that never made it to a vote.

APPEASEMENT. A hot topic in the past few days, but a valid point nonetheless. This ties in with France, the UN, and Europe in general. Anyone remember League of Nations? Anyone know why it doesn't exist anymore?

The league of nations was created after World War I for very much the same reason the UN was created. Keep the world safe and at peace and make sure we all get along. Well, that was all fine and dandy until this fine chap in Germany named Hitler showed up. He invades a country, all the surrounding countries hear him say he won't do it again, and take him on his word. He keeps doing this, no one wants to confront
him on it, and besides, he seems like a nice guy, isn't doing this in a mean-spirited fashion, so we'll just leave him alone. The next thing you know we have a madman bent on world domination and he's so powerful it takes the rest of the world to take him down. So what we had there was a series of incidents that should have been acted upon. We wanted peace, and war was not the answer, so we'll look away in
hopes that it doesn't happen again. All of Europe looked away, hoping, perhaps believing it would eventually stop and peace would come. Not that the US wasn't to blame, we didn't involve ourselves at all until we were hit directly. So here we are now, in nearly the same situation, only it isn't Hitler, it's Saddam (whose uncle was tightly allied with the Nazi party, btw), and he's not bent on invading other countries (he already tried that), he's bent on acquiring as much firepower as possible
until he's too big to do anything about it. Once again, everyone is saying give it more time, he says he'll cooperate, so let's just wait and give peace a chance? If Iraq wanted to give up their weapons, we'd almost be done destroying those weapons already.


You may ask yourself.. "Why Iraq?" Well - he's first on the list. It's an unresolved issue 12 years old. It was the UN who didn't think he should have been ousted after Kuwait - simply push him back into his own country, reinstate the gov't of Kuwait, and he'll behave. We know what he's trying to do, and it would be
prudent to stop him before he has the means to wreak havoc. It would also be wise to put an end to his 'example' of how to side-step world authority. If we left him alone, couldn't these other problem countries see that as an example of how to get away with proliferation?

Yes, there are other countries that could be dealt with, but none are as anxious to get weapons and put them to use. Iraq is first, but I'm positive there will be
other issues after this is over. North Korea is next, I'm sure. They already have nukes, and Kim Jong Il is a crazy little fucker, so we have many more threats of nuclear hell awaiting us when we're through in the middle east.


Well.. I'm spent. Covered too much. Longest fucking post ever. Thanks for reading.. If you've made it this far, I'd like to hear some of your opinions. At the very least I hope I made for an interesting read to keep you from working. ;-)