Was The War in Iraq Necessary

[Black Dog]

What do you think the reaction would be at this point if George W. Bush came out of the White House tomorrow and said, "hey listen, I changed my mind. There won't be any Iraqi elections. Meet my good buddy Mustafah Al-Massacre, he'll be running the country with the help of a big gang of thugs and the CIA."

If you'd do a careful read of my posts, nowhere did I suggest the U.S. would install a Saddam-lite dictator. Certainly the "new" Iraq will bear the trappings of a democracy, but will be smeared with the fingerprints of the U.S.A.

Furthermore, there are many countries in the world where US involvement has created or rescued genuine democracy. There is a substantial track record for that too, which you seem to have forgotten.

We're talking about creating democracy out of nothing. Name any countries where a functioning and legitimate democracy was imposed by military force.

Indeed, occupiers have always cloaked their intentions in high-minded rhetoric of liberation and freedom. The Japanese "liberated" Manchuria, the U.S. itself also brought democracy to central America in the '80s, complete with massacres, torture, violence and destruction of the countries. What "democracies" they did construct were top-down democracies - with the traditional elites in power that have been connected to the U.S.

Have they consistently shown the Iraqis want a full-scale civil war, or a theocratic or military dictator to step into Saddam's shoes

It still baffles me that no one has any faith in the Iraqi people being able to come up with a soultion to their own problems. When you look at the current situation, much of the instability is a de facto product of the occupation: no occupation, no widespread insurgency. There's certainly no guarantee Iraq will fall into total ethno-religious anarchy. Yes, there will be violence, but no more, I expect, than there is now (especially since there's little chance of thinghs getting better in the short term).

The Catch 22 is that the stated aims of the U.S. in Iraq (if one supposses they are legitimate) will not succeed so long as the U.S. remains in the country. They will always be the occupier and any government bearing their fingerprints will be viewed as a puppet.

The only thing preventing that kind of progress is people like you. By your reactions, you have deterred the US administration from continuing on this kind of action.

I can see that the U.S. is handcuffed. Who can forget the mass public outcry when the U.S. moved to take out Suharto, Pinochet, and all those other bids for bring democracy to the world that were foiled by protests from the left.

Get your head out: supporting dictators is standard policy in western governments. It's about economics: its simply easier for western nations to do business with the thugs. Democratic countries tend to resist economic exploitation and policies geared towards a tiny segment of the population, therefore, for such policies to succed, "we" tend to favour iron-fisted rulers who can keep the population in check.

You have made it clear you'd rather have the dictators left well alone, than any kind of action be taken against them (unless, of course, it be the utterly laughable half-measures from the UN that would never have achieved anything in a million years).

Of course, you neglect to ask how the dictators acheived power in the first place. As for the UN "half-measures", they worked very well in containing Saddam and keeping his WMD aspirations in check for the past decade plus. There was no reason to think they could not have continued.

OK, name me a democratic Arab country. Just one will do. One solitary example that proves your point.

There is one democtratically elected Arab leader: Yassar Arafat. However, there's also only one Islmaic theocracy: Iran. Most of the other Arab and Muslim nations are monarchies (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) or military dictatorships (like the western-backed regimes in Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria and Morocco).

Japan had no established democratic institutions.

Yes it did. Japan was establishing democratic institutions in the '20s, during the period known as the "Taisho Democracy".

The comparason between post-war Japan and Germany and prent-day Iraq is, at best, spurious.

[Hugo]

Certainly the "new" Iraq will bear the trappings of a democracy, but will be smeared with the fingerprints of the U.S.A.

That's a meaningless statement. You could see the "fingerprints of the USA" in any democratic country if you look hard enough.

We're talking about creating democracy out of nothing. Name any countries where a functioning and legitimate democracy was imposed by military force.

Japan.

It still baffles me that no one has any faith in the Iraqi people being able to come up with a soultion to their own problems.

I'm sure they will, but the mullahs will get there first given half a chance. That's the whole problem. The clear role for the Coalition at this time is to remain in the country, maintain law and order and allow the Iraqi people an environment in which they can develop their own polity.

It's about economics: its simply easier for western nations to do business with the thugs.

No, it isn't. The vast majority of foreign trade in western, democratic nations is with other western, democratic nations. Since 1945 about 80% of US foreign trade has been with Western Europe and Japan. Most of the remaining 20% was with non-Western democracies such as Mexico or India.

In March 2004, the 10 countries doing the most business with the US were, in descending order:

Canada

Mexico

China

Japan

Germany

UK

South Korea

France

Taiwan

Ireland

Trade with Canada was 1,615 times as great as trade with Iran and 21,000 times as great as trade with North Korea. All this information comes from the 2004 US Census.

As for the UN "half-measures", they worked very well in containing Saddam

Is this a sick joke? Did you miss the 300,000 corpses? "Containment" worked great, unless you were also contained in the same country as the psychopath.

There is one democtratically elected Arab leader: Yassar Arafat.

And another joke, surely. Yasser Arafat is about as elected as Pervez Musharraf. He gets elected because people who don't vote for him get their tongues, testicles or heads cut off.

Yes it did. Japan was establishing democratic institutions in the '20s, during the period known as the "Taisho Democracy".

And they really stood the test of time, didn't they?

[KrustyKidd]

Black Dog, you can go back to oiling your sandwhichboard again. You have, by events of today, been proved wrong on your contentions that the US maintains control on the council. Save up your energy for the next unsubstanciated anti US rant.

YAWAR NEW IRAQI PRESIDENT

Ghazi Yawar, has been picked as president of Iraq after the favoured US choice, Adnan Pachachi, declined to take the job, Iraqi politicians have said.

Governing Council member Rajaa Habib Khuzai said Mr Pachachi, an 81-year-old former foreign minister, was offered the position but turned it down.

Mr Yawar, a Sunni Muslim who lived for years in Saudi Arabia and the council's favoured choice, then got the job.

Later.

[Black Dog]

That's a meaningless statement. You could see the "fingerprints of the USA" in any democratic country if you look hard enough.

You know exactly what I mean. But in case you aren't just pretending ti be obtuse, I mean a government that takes it's policy cues from the White House, not the Iraqi people.

I'm sure they will, but the mullahs will get there first given half a chance. That's the whole problem. The clear role for the Coalition at this time is to remain in the country, maintain law and order and allow the Iraqi people an environment in which they can develop their own polity.

What mullahs? Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the influential cleric who's pushing for free elections? Al-Sadr? Who's your pick to be the new leader? Are you basing your predictioon of an Islamic theocracy on anything but a presupposition that that's the only way those Ay-rabs know? After all, I already pointe dout there is but one example of an Islamic theocracy in the region.

No, it isn't. The vast majority of foreign trade in western, democratic nations is with other western, democratic nations. Since 1945 about 80% of US foreign trade has been with Western Europe and Japan. Most of the remaining 20% was with non-Western democracies such as Mexico or India.

The third world is the resource base for western trade. That's why the west subjects third world nations to the one-two punch of repressive regimes and IMF-backed economic "reforms" that open countries up to complete purchase by foreign corporations. We've seen it in the neoliberal economic program in South and Central America and we're seeing it in Iraq today.

Is this a sick joke? Did you miss the 300,000 corpses? "Containment" worked great, unless you were also contained in the same country as the psychopath.

As I've said before, the 300,000 figure is deceptive, as it includes total deaths during teh Iran/Iraq war, when Saddam and our support. Which means the west is culpable in any of Saddam's pre-1991 atrocities (and many of his post Gulf War ones as well, as demonstrated by the west's inaction during the post-war rebellion).

(By the way, where were your howls of outrage then? Where is your searing indictment of Rumsfeld, cheney, Regan, and all the other's who knowingly did business with the murderous Saddam?)

However, if you look at some of the reasons given for ousting Saddam now, they included that he was an immediate (or potential) threat to Mid East security and stability. Containment assured he was not a threat tyo regional security.

And another joke, surely. Yasser Arafat is about as elected as Pervez Musharraf.

Or Bush.

He gets elected because people who don't vote for him get their tongues, testicles or heads cut off.

Do you have evidence of any of these practices?

The 1996 PA elections were plagued with irregularities, but independent international observers reported the elections to have been free and fair. The fact remains that Arafat is the only democratically elected Arab leader in the region. You asked for an example: ther eyou have it.

And they really stood the test of time, didn't they?

And your point is?

Again: you said Japan had no prewar democratic institutions: it did. Q.E.D.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog, you can go back to oiling your sandwhichboard again. You have, by events of today, been proved wrong on your contentions that the US maintains control on the council. Save up your energy for the next unsubstanciated anti US rant.

KK, stick your smugness where the sun don't shine. I'll wait and see how this story develops, but your three paragraph article hardly disproves a single thing I've said. The council's choice only happened because the U.S.'s pick declined the job. Also, the job of president is largely ceremonial. The prime minister's job is the one to watch.

If anything, al-Yawar's apointment (or to be more precise: Pachachi's declineing of the position) shows the declining credibility of the Pentagon's faction in the U.S. administration. It also shows that Iraqis are capable of running their own show, even as the U.S. attampts to force their opicks down their throat (Bremner pushed the council to not vote on their pick in the first place).

[Hugo]

I mean a government that takes it's policy cues from the White House

Which democratic governments in the world take their policy cues from the White House? Where's the precedent?

What mullahs?

The ones shooting and bombing US soldiers and Iraqi civilians. There'll be no Iraqi king, which leaves only another military dictator or a theocracy as the likeliest candidates for a coup. Right now, it seems to me that the theocrats are more prevalent, so that is the group that I believe will end up in control should the US leave.

The third world is the resource base for western trade.

I don't want to hear it, BlackDog. I already gave the evidence that proves this notion wrong. You have no evidence, so your point is null and void.

However, if you look at some of the reasons given for ousting Saddam now, they included that he was an immediate (or potential) threat to Mid East security and stability.

He has a history of aggression against neighbour states. He was sponsoring terrorism. He was attempting to acquire or develop WMD. What does one have to do to be defined a potential threat to security and stability in your eyes, BlackDog? I'm tempted to think you'd believe he was "contained" until an Iraqi soldier was actually bayoneting you.

"And another joke, surely. Yasser Arafat is about as elected as Pervez Musharraf." 

Or Bush.

Recantation accepted.

Do you have evidence of any of these practices?

Yes, a primary witness called Walid Shoebat.

The fact remains that Arafat is the only democratically elected Arab leader in the region.

The fact remains that his popular mandate has about as much credibility as Hitler's did in 1938.

Again: you said Japan had no prewar democratic institutions: it did. Q.E.D.

I think we both know you're grasping at straws here. The pre-1917 Russian diet was a democratic institution as well, but only a fool would believe that there was any kind of democracy or respect for it alive in Russia at that time. The fact is that Japan had no history of practicing or respecting democracy when the USA introduced them to it.

[Black Dog]

Which democratic governments in the world take their policy cues from the White House? Where's the precedent?

Look up the Washington Consensus.

I don't want to hear it, BlackDog. I already gave the evidence that proves this notion wrong. You have no evidence, so your point is

Ah yeas... the "la la la, I'm not listening " approach. Let's puit it this way: if it wasn't for third world resources, western dmocracies would have F.A. to trade with one another.

The ones shooting and bombing US soldiers and Iraqi civilians. There'll be no Iraqi king, which leaves only another military dictator or a theocracy as the likeliest candidates for a coup. Right now, it seems to me that the theocrats are more prevalent, so that is the group that I believe will end up in control should the US leave.

Which one's specifically. Come on: I amawaiting to be dazzled by your knowledge of the personalities vying for power in Iraq.

He has a history of aggression against neighbour states. He was sponsoring terrorism. He was attempting to acquire or develop WMD.

- Iraq's military was devestated by the first Gulf War. It's equipment was out of date, its personnel priomarily demoralized, underpaid cosncripts. None of Iraq's neighbour's viewed Saddam as a serious threat.

-There's no evidence that Saddam was a sponsor of terror. Saddam rewarded families of suicide bombers, but that's not "sponsoring" terror.

-Where are the WMD programs?

What does one have to do to be defined a potential threat to security and stability in your eyes, BlackDog? I'm tempted to think you'd believe he was "contained" until an Iraqi soldier was actually bayoneting you.

Actually posing a viable military or economic threat would be a good starty. Saddam was neither, a bloated, broken and ostracized regime.

Your last statement reminds me of the propaganda used during the early stages of the Cold War when we could expect a red tide of godless commies to sweep across north America, eating babies and raping our houspets. Hyperbole and scaremongering with no basis in the real world.

Recantation accepted.

Sarcasm missed.

Yes, a primary witness called Walid Shoebat.

Citation?

I think we both know you're grasping at straws here. The pre-1917 Russian diet was a democratic institution as well, but only a fool would believe that there was any kind of democracy or respect for it alive in Russia at that time. The fact is that Japan had no history of practicing or respecting democracy when the USA introduced them to it.

Look, don't take your ignorance of history out on me. Japan had a strong social democratic movement from 1912-1926 that only fell by the way side with the decline of the economy and the rise of militarism in Japanese society. Up until a few minutes ago, you didn't even acknowledge or know about the existence of Japan's democratic past, which doesn't exactly give your pronouncements on its legitimacy much weight.

[Hugo]

Look up the Washington Consensus.

That's your argument?

Let's puit it this way: if it wasn't for third world resources, western dmocracies would have F.A. to trade with one another.

Three strikes, you're out. That's three times you have offered that opinion and three times you have provided absolutely no evidence or logic to support it.

You simply have no idea about this subject. It's probably better for your argument if you refrain from speaking about it in future.

Which one's specifically.

Let's begin with Moqtada Sadr.

Saddam was neither, a bloated, broken and ostracized regime.

Who happened to be buying weapons, sponsoring terrorists and looking to get WMD. A problem.

Citation?

"Arafat is a chip off the same block as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Ahmed Yassin – they are all birds of a feather, they have small differences but are birds of a feather."

18:53 Jan 27, '04 / 4 Shevat 5764

That's all I could find in print, although admittedly I didn't search very hard. The quotation about the cutting off of tongues and heads came from a TV interview.

Japan had a strong social democratic movement from 1912-1926

Japanese men got the vote in 1925. The next year, the emperor Taisho died and the military began their takeover. Hardly a great democratic heritage.

[Black Dog]

Three strikes, you're out. That's three times you have offered that opinion and three times you have provided absolutely no evidence or logic to support it.

You simply have no idea about this subject. It's probably better for your argument if you refrain from speaking about it in future.

As oppossed to your overwhelming evidence of...what?

I guess there's no western involvement in third world economies.

Let's begin with Moqtada Sadr.

Alright, good start. What about him?

Who happened to be buying weapons, sponsoring terrorists and looking to get WMD. A problem.

Wrong on all counts.

That's all I could find in print, although admittedly I didn't search very hard. The quotation about the cutting off of tongues and heads came from a TV interview.

Selective credulity.

Japanese men got the vote in 1925. The next year, the emperor Taisho died and the military began their takeover. Hardly a great democratic heritage.

Good, you can read an encyclopedia. But that wasn't the question. Let's go back.

Japan had no established democratic institutions.

Japan had a parliament with a house of representatives whose members after 1925 were elected by universal manhood suffrage. The Japanese military usurped the parliament's role in the mid-1930s, crushing the fledgling democracy, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, Japan had established democratic institutions.

[KrustyKidd]

KK, stick your smugness where the sun don't shine. I'll wait and see how this story develops, but your three paragraph article hardly disproves a single thing I've said. The council's choice only happened because the U.S.'s pick declined the job. Also, the job of president is largely ceremonial. The prime minister's job is the one to watch.

Your argument has changed. You said the US would not relinguish control and cited the Presidency as an example Now that the pick of the US has declined they did not interfere, hence your origional argument is invalid as the US has turned over control in that area. PM, President whatever, you said President origionally, now it is the PM postition that it all hinges on. LOL, what happens after you've been once again proved wrong? It goes to Minister of Antiquities? Comon, least you can admit when you are wrong about something can't you?

[Hugo]

As oppossed to your overwhelming evidence of...what?

The US Census data I gave you on international trade.

I guess there's no western involvement in third world economies.

Until you put up some evidence proving that there is, we'll have to accept that, yes. Whoever made up the rumour that the West exploits the Third World must be very pleased at how widely it has spread and how many people, such as yourself, blindly accept it without even bothering to perform a scrap of research to verify it. 5 minutes on the website of the US Census would dispel your illusions.

Alright, good start. What about him?

You don't think Sadr would have made a play for power had the Coalition not been there? He very nearly did anyway and I'm sure his change of heart was more due to staring down the barrels of American tanks than to humanitarian concerns. He received funding from Mullah Qusi and is supported by former Ba'ath intelligence officers.

This is the sort of person who would seize power were the Coalition to pull out tomorrow. Sadr is suspected of the murder of some of his rivals and has collected and armed a rag-tag army to do his will. Clearly, this is not a man whose solemn vow is to hold free elections should he get power in Iraq.

Wrong on all counts.

Well, let's see about that. Buying weapons? Did you miss the German shipments of military equipment such as night-vision goggles? Sponsoring terrorists? Saddam himself went on Al-Jazeera and promised a large cash prize to the family of any successful suicide bomber who died killing Israelis. Looking to get WMD? Well, BlackDog, why would Saddam have WMD programmes if he had absolutely no interest in WMD?

You accuse Krusty of a child-like faith in the US, but you seem to have a child-like faith in Saddam Hussein. I know which one is sillier.

Selective credulity.

If you say so. Personally, I'll take the word of a man who served under Arafat for his entire adult life and has every incentive to be quiet and no incentive to tell his story, over yours, as you have no experience or evidence to support your idea that Arafat is a truly democratically elected leader.

Japan had a parliament with a house of representatives whose members after 1925 were elected by universal manhood suffrage. The Japanese military usurped the parliament's role in the mid-1930s, crushing the fledgling democracy, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, Japan had established democratic institutions.

Alright, BlackDog, I'll concede. Japan had embryonic, short-lived and clearly very weak democratic institutions.

Unfortunately for your argument, so did Iraq. In 1921 Prince Faisal was elected king with 96% of the vote, and in 1925 Iraq held her first parliamentary elections. In 1941, this admittedly weak democracy came to an end 9 years after Iraq was pronounced an independent kingdom and admitted to the League of Nations. Iraq broke the terms of her alliance with Britain and declared war upon her, and after a 4-week war the British occupied the country and ensured the formation of a pro-British government.

[Black Dog]

KK, re-read my post that cited articles on the turmoil over the presidency and prime minister. There's a clear distinction between the two positions.

I certainlly didn't expect things to go the way they did. Anyway, the U.S. didn't relinquish control, it was taken from them.

There's a clear gap between the U.S.'s intentions in Iraq and the way things are panning out. As it stands, they U.S. is very weak. As a result, the US has not been in a position to dictate the political appointments. However, the new government, which still is stocked heavily with U.S apointees and former exiles, doesn't have much legitimacy. Juan Cole, teh Middle East scholar who's doing great work on the political developments in Iraq,has said the new government will inevitably be seen as an American imposition, especially since it will be unable to enforce its authority without the U.S.

[KrustyKidd]

I certainlly didn't expect things to go the way they did. Anyway, the U.S. didn't relinquish control, it was taken from them.

LOL. Nice try Black Dog, so the US is not powerful enough to stop this from happening? In other words, the US has simply done what they have said all along, allow Iraqis to carry on with the democratic process. Clearly this is an indicator of their honorable intent.

Anyhow. Good luck with Hugo, you'll need it. I have to go away for a few days and hope to put you up against the ropes again on my return.

[Black Dog]

KK, careful you don't pull a muscle or dislocate something. Make sure you stretch before you pat yourself on the back so vigourously.

In other words, the US has simply done what they have said all along, allow Iraqis to carry on with the democratic process. Clearly this is an indicator of their honorable intent.

How can it be a "democratic process" when the vast majority of Iraqis have no say in their "new" government, agovernment made up entirely of "Iraqis" (mostly long-time exiles) handpicked by the CPA?

so the US is not powerful enough to stop this from happening?

Obviously, the U.S. didn't consider the dispute over the presidency a hill worth dying on, especially since they retain full control over policy, security (such as it is) and financing of the "new" Iraqi government. Not to mention ramming their pick down the IGC's throat would further damage the "new" government's already shaky credibility.

New Iraqi government clone of old.

The "new" Iraqi government (regardless of what figurehead tops it) is dominated by individuals who owe their positions to the U.S. Authority (defined by sociologist Max Weber as "the likelihood that a command will be obeyed") will still rest with the American until a general election can be called.

Of course a general election won't happen until the security situation improves. Of course the security situation won't improve until the Americans are gone. Only they aren't leaving. Ever.

[Bushmustgo]

Thomas Friedman quote:

"Republicans want to use a hammer for every problem even though every problem is not a nail."

Today George Bush praised George Tenet after his resignation and was never held accountable or responsible. This administration believed in holding Saddam accountable and responsible, yet they didn't apply that logic across the board. Bush loves to tell us he's Commander-in-Chief, yet he has not held anyone, including himself, responsible for taking us to hell in a handbasket????

Even more damage to our image abroad from thie administration is that they have been envious of America's hopeful nature, now we have turned hope into fear tactics...paraphrased from T. Friedman.

[Hugo]

Bush loves to tell us he's Commander-in-Chief, yet he has not held anyone, including himself, responsible for taking us to hell in a handbasket????

I believe there'll be an election this year. If the American public feels that Bush was mistaken and erroneous enough to deserve it they can elect Kerry.

[Black Dog]

I believe there'll be an election this year. If the American public feels that Bush was mistaken and erroneous enough to deserve it they can elect Kerry.

...who'll continue the exact same policies as Bush, albeit with a moderated rhetorical tone.

Oh goody.

[Hugo]

Do you have any further rebuttal?

[Black Dog]

Did you have a point?

[Hugo]

The first post on this page is a series of points. I thought you might put up an argument as they were all refutations of your contentions. Do you accept them all?

[Liberal Krusty]

The first post on this page is a series of points. I thought you might put up an argument as they were all refutations of your contentions. Do you accept them all?

Hugo, how does one refute an idiot? By going down to his own level and becomming one yourself? I would never do that as you would neither as well.

On the first day that Iraq was invaded I was behind the US 99%. But now I believe that it was a huge mistake as more American soldiers die. What do you all think of the war in Iraq.

Really. Typical right wing apoligist. Now after somebody gets hurt they are all over the place trying to return to days of aniseptic wars. Unfortunately, people die in war. Too bad Hitler .....eeer Bush I mean didn't figure that one out before hand.

KK, careful you don't pull a muscle or dislocate something. Make sure you stretch before you pat yourself on the back so vigourously.

Krusty Kid (AKA) Korporate Krusty) has headed to the coast for a week or two with some of his Big Business Buddies to suck some ecological disaster for bills I'm sure. Hopefully they will leave some marine life alive in thier quest to rip off the world but wherever they are you can be sure they are patting themselves on the back every thime some Iraqi child dies of starvation or from an isurgent grenade. Myself, his older and wiser brother has come back from a social/ecological study of the Orote Tribe of Northwestern Borneo and upon searching his opulent abode have come across this computor and site.

To portray Saddam as an aggressor is typical of Western thought. His two son's were killed in their own coutry in a cowardly act of many against two. You would think that Bush, in true western regalia would have some sort of 'High Noon' with the sons of he who the US had supported throughout all these years. No, instead, he safely sat in the White House and saw fit to frormulate a supposed crime (owning WMD) and use this as a pretext to gain a foothold to steal oil.

We could learn much from my studies of the Orote Tribe which I have been on a Canadian Government Grant for the past twelve years studying. Although they have only fifty members, they are a virtual microrcosm of our wold. We unite nations together to make war on supposed 'evil.' Destruction of our supposed enemies and such while they, have a tribal meeting and lop off the heads of rival factions. End of story. We can learn much here. Only if we listen though. The ecological impact of fity people in a billion square mile area is minor as they shit in the woods here and there, hither and fro while we, careless as we are pump thousand of gallons of raw sewage into our rivers and lakes. We are at fault. We are to blame, nobody else.

I've had an opportunity to read some of youg Bro's prose. Factual? What a joke, all his proof is straight from the Right Wing press (60 Minutes, AP, and all) leaving all the so called left in confusion. Left? How can you be left when you live in this corupt world? How can you be part of the Oil sucking West ? Not for Kerry, not for Bush? Not for Nader? Comon, what are we for? As far as I am concerned, if the Iraqi people didn't like Saddam, they shouldn't have elected him in the first place. And if the USA were truly interested in getting rid of WMD they should have attacked France, Russia, Britain, China, Israel and North Korea simultaniously. That would have made things a little more fairer than imposing some sort of 'payback' to some poor shmuck' that was simply invading Kuwait on the instructions of the US ambassador.

How can it be a "democratic process" when the vast majority of Iraqis have no say in their "new" government, agovernment made up entirely of "Iraqis" (mostly long-time exiles) handpicked by the CPA?

Exactly. Only those Iraqis not versed in international affairs should be able to run for office. Only those opposed to the US should even be considered. The US is clearly trying to install a Dictator friendly to their vision of 'Kansas' Allowing even an interim government is BS. They should go straight for the core and allow elections now! Issue every voter an RPG. an AK 47 and a thousand rounds, hostages here and there, and vote! This is after all the Middle Eastern Way. Coups, death, war and all.

Transition. LOL. No tranisiton, let Iraq deal with Iraq. Let he who can bring in the most ecologicaly sanist way be king I say. No, 'steal the oil' Bush says. I agree with you Black Dog. Krusty Kid would too however he is probably drilling for oil in some poor whale's head right now.

'Big Business Krusty' LOL. Well, sad to say, he will soon be 'Liquorless Krusty' once he gets back. My grant ran out as I told you before, I have no money and have aquiessed to his request to house sit for him for the duratin of his 'Nature Rape' for the next few weeks. I alrready found the Drambui too strong and have fed it to my most opulent posession my 'motorized bycycle.' I have aquired a stong attraction for the Creme De Menthe though. Much supirior to the Banna Wine of the Orotes. A nice change.

[August1991]

Krusty Kid (AKA) Korporate Krusty) has headed to the coast for a week or two with some of his Big Business Buddies to suck some ecological disaster for bills I'm sure.

Is Krusty Schizoid?

[Liberal Krusty]

s Krusty Schizoid?

I love him dearly August. He is after all the black sheep of the family. Dad (Kreepy Kretin) would have wanted him to follow in my footsteps but when he met up with that right wing money sucking b**ch (Kreamy Kruella AKA Kruella the K) all our hopes for him being anything other than a Grant Recipient vanished. Instead he decided to actually hold a job and pay taxes. As Kreepy Kretin (now KK the Korpse) used to say "Liberal, how can you publicly fund a sucessful business?" To which I nearly cried because you can't. Krusty Kid was a failure from day one. No studies of Ancient Pre Columbian Philantrophy, no inquiries of why we have no inquiries on the lack of studies for the lack of inquiries on Liberal Small Business Sucesses. No, he was a failure from day one as he carried out his non publicly funded paper route while we patrolled governmental administrative orders to discover the best paying idsabilities for the future.

He does have a sense of entitlemnt August. He actually thinks that he gets what he puts into something and in that, is probably closer to you than reality. He is a war monger who wants all Iraqis to die and loves Haliburtin. Vile and sinful (if there was a God I mean) he would torture an endangered species just to get an edge on a good stock tip rather than disect it slowely in order to keep a study grant going. Dad had this theory that people like Kusty Kid purposefully instigated the Holocost (if it is ever proven to be true) in order to provide irritation for people who don't want the Jews to ever be a victim now or in the past. Victims, yes, but our victims we would tell him as we pointed to every group that could stand up for themselves and become self sufficient. Expiedient victims for the here and now.

[caesar]

The "invasion" of Iraq was not only unjustified as UN weapons inspectors WERE still doing their job. It was a detour away from the war on the REAL terrorists. What this invasion has done is to create more recruits for the terrorist groups. It has spread these groups out where they will no longer be containable.

The "invasion" was based on lies and deliberate misinformation that much of still prevails today. Saddam was a "smartass" but at that time; no longer dangerous. The invasion was about securing oil not "freeing the Iraqis" nor Iraq's supposed cache of WMD.

[Liberal Krusty]

And once they have stolen Iraq's WMD and oil they will move onto the next country. Always the same; UN resolutions, invade, install their own version of democracy, UN resolutions, invade .... repeat as required.