Peacekeeper/ Matt Drudge

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Nancy, I understand your position, and you are not alone. I don't question your motives. But I don't believe a war is justified unless we are attacked first or there is indisputable evidence that we were about to be attacked.

I understand - but even "indisputable evidence" will be disputed by people who refuse to believe anything they are told that doesn't gel with their world view. The administration does have evidence, but there are always people claiming that their documents are forgeries, or that videos/photographs have been doctored, or that their polls are false, etc. etc. Some people already have their minds made up and will dismiss anything short of bombs falling on their heads. And a few of those folks would probably figure out a way to blame the administration for even that!

A recent poll shows that about 40 percent of respondents thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Doesn't that bother you? It's simply untrue, but it indicates that our government, through relentless deceptive propaganda, has struck fear into the hearts of a lot of people. Have you ever made a decision in fear? Decisions in fear tend not to be the best decisions one makes.

Well, I have been watching this same "propaganda" and I don't believe that Saddam initiated 911. I don't remember hearing that Saddam masterminded that. I do remember hearing that Al-Qa'ida has links to Iraq. I believe that.

All this talk about installing democracy in Iraq is poppycock, and I will be proven right about this. You'll see.

Obviously I can't argue with this hypothetical but I certainly hope you are wrong.

By the way, the LA Times reported last week on a secret State Department report that there's no way in hell democracy is going to happen as a result of this war. And furthermore, "entrenched economic and social problems are likely to undermine even basic stability for years to come." This is George W.'s own State Department! Doesn't that trouble you?

I am worried about Iraq because I know that the truth is that installing democracy is not easily accomplished and certainly will not be done overnight. Yes, it will take years. But Iraq is going to benefit from this. They are suffering under Saddam. When he is gone, it will be a long, hard road, but they will be better off. Did you know that after the Gulf War Iraqis staged a revolt? It failed because the US didn't help them out, and those who participated - as well as their relatives - were tortured and massacred. Are we going to leave them to that fate again?

The CIA has said we will be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks as a result fo the war.

Decisions in fear tend not to be the best decisions one makes.

Our own military is divided on how many troops and how long it would take to stabilize Iraq after this war. The government refuses to tell us their estimates for the cost of the war. We have been lied to and the people we "elected" are refusing to listen to us? How can these people be trusted to install democracy anywhere when they are ignoring democracy at home?

This war will be expensive. That's a fact of life. I for one think the money is well-spent. And of course, as I said earlier, people will always maintain that whatever the government says is a lie. Also, policy should not be dictated by polls, but even if it were, a majority of Americans support the war (oops, those polls are false lies, right?) Therefore, I believe that the argument that the American govermment does not act as a democracy is a flawed one at best.

I'm sorry I have gone on so long but I feel really passionate about this. My father works for Mobil (now ExxonMobil) and works in Saudi Arabia. I was living there when the Gulf War occurred. My mother, sister, and I were evacuated and my dad was given a gas mask. All we could do was pray Saddam didn't point his weapons of mass destruction my father's way. My parents still live over there, and the gas masks are once again being passed out.

I'm not saying my experience gives me added authority - I know there are people who are a lot more threated by Saddam than my parents are - like you guys in Israel! But, for me at least, it brings home the fact that he is indeed a dangerous man. He must be disarmed, and it's become painfully obvious military action is the only way to accomplish this goal.

OK, I am going to step back a bit now and let other people talk. (Well, I intend to do that, we'll see if I actually stick by it. lol It's spring break and I have lots of time, after all!)

[CarneVaca]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sodascouts
The administration does have evidence, but there are always people claiming that their documents are forgeries, or that videos/photographs have been doctored, or that their polls are false, etc. etc. Some people already have their minds made up and will dismiss anything short of bombs falling on their heads. And a few of those folks would probably figure out a way to blame the administration for even that!

Sorry, Nancy, I just don't believe these jokers. They have already been caught in some lies, i.e., the aluminum tubes they claimed were being used for nuclear weapons, which as it turns out, cannot be used for that end. And, yes, they have forged documents, as have previous administrations. There's no doubt in my mind they have lied to us. And will continue to.

Well, I have been watching this same "propaganda" and I don't believe that Saddam initiated 911. I don't remember hearing that Saddam masterminded that. I do remember hearing that Al-Qa'ida has links to Iraq. I believe that.

You're a well-informed person. A lot of people who hear these claims about links to Al Qaida are just taking that at face value, and the administration knows damn well that is the effect these constant deceptions will have on the less-informed people. That's why they pay millions of dollars to PR consultants.

Obviously I can't argue with this hypothetical but I certainly hope you are wrong.

I tell you what, we'll revisit this in a few months.

Did you know that after the Gulf War Iraqis staged a revolt? It failed because the US didn't help them out, and those who participated - as well as their relatives - were tortured and massacred. Are we going to leave them to that fate again?

Yes, I am aware of that. And it's all the more reason for me to not have faith in what our government is telling us it is going to do. Also, remember Vietnam. We were lied to then. I think that's beyond question at this point. I could point to a lot of other examples, but I think that's enough.

Decisions in fear tend not to be the best decisions one makes.

Right you are. My point is not to cave in to fear; it's to put our resources where they are most useful.

This war will be expensive. That's a fact of life. I for one think the money is well-spent.

Well, considering that mayors and governors all over the country, and even officials in the city that suffered the worst terrorist attack in history, say they are not getting enough money from the feds to protect us, I would say that spending billions and billions of dollars on an unnecessary war is not money well-spent.

I know there's a lot of concern about weapons of mass destruction, but we seem to have lost sight of the fact that the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters and airliners, and that 14 out of 19 were Saudis, not Iraqis.

I hope your family will be safe in Saudi Arabia. I understand your concerns. Somehow I think they would be safer without this war.

[SmthngOfADreamr]

Originally posted by stefan
And so Mr. Bush isolating his country by going to war without international legitimation commits in my opinion a crime.

I think this is a very ideological statement. However, we must live in the real world. Of course it would be better for the United States to go to war with the backing of all of our supposed allies and the United Nations. But it was becoming increasingly evident that this was never going to happen. For God's sake, it seems the French would sooner allow Saddam to occupy Paris than to take a serious look at this situation.

The fact of the matter is, the longer this is put off, the more of a danger Saddam is likely to become for the entire world. He's already had over 10 years to play around with. Should the world keep farting around for another 10 while we let him acquire nuclear capabilities? It's got to end sometime, and that was the point of resolution 1441. I think President Bush has done more than enough to prove that Saddam is in definate violation of this resolution and I think it's a damn shame the the rest of the world who agreed to it refuse to live up to their own words. We can inspect forever, does that mean that Saddam will disarm? Hell no!

I am not a warmonger, and I do not like war any more than the rest of the world. If there were another way to rid the world of Saddam, then I would be all for it. The problem is, I don't know of another way.

Now to bring this back to music-
As far as what the Dixie Chicks comments go- I think it's somewhat disgraceful. I have a cousin who is a navigator in the airforce who is currently stationed in the Persian Gulf. I think that at this time, Americans should support our military forces who must serve now, and to undermind their commander-in-cheif in such a juvenile way, regardless of whether or not we agree with him- is embarrasing to the coutry and embarassing to our fellow citizens in the Gulf. That being said, I don't think it's necessary to ban their music or burn their records. That's a bit much.

[Bella Figura]

I know Stevie is doing the right thing about keeping her political opinions to herself and I should probably do the same. However just in response to Carne following statement:

"just from the people around me, I'd say it's more like 75 percent against the war. Of course, I am in New York. "

I'm also in NY however I am about 60 miles North of the City and the percentage turns around up here. More people support the objectives of WAR because we want to remain free peace loving people. Working class people who commute to NY as fireman and cops and/or stay at home raising families. But we are all tired of living in fear...this fear has been led by a media-feeding frenzy of terrorism, war and hate, exploiting the views of Bin Laden, Iraq and Korea and now to even those countries that are supposed to be our allies. So we are willing to support our troops (which btw, working class people and their sons and daughters make up the largest part of the military), our President (which btw I did not vote for but would never disrespect) and the probability we will have to fight to save our world and the values that it stands for by ourselves, again.

A lesson I have learned myself the hard way as a child in the schoolyard...the only way to stop a bully from his behavior is to stand up to them. Bullies really understand the true effects of fear and intimidation much better than a rational peaceful person. The Appeasement concept is never understood by a bully, it is too reasonable/rational, too grown-up a way to think, and is always misinterpreted as a "green light" for more unacceptable behavior. A bully always sees peace (even the reasonable cease-fire in '91) as weakness...

I, too, heard Peacekeeper on the Drudge Report and found myself laughing that a song about a missle is an anti-war statement. Especially when Lindsey actually removed a key phrase "only kill" to be PC. He should have left it as is rather then caving to the "pop"ular...true art should never cave into intimidation. As far as the Hollywood situation...an artist really should express themselves primarily through their art and if I had my way, stop telling the rest of us how to think, war is not a fashion statement...I can make up my own mind. I'm on-guard not to be manipulated by my goverment but are we as well defensed against manipulation by our favorite celebrities?? I absolutely adore John Lennon but I have to blame him for his part in starting all this "political activism" on the part of celebrities.

I was very tempted to email Lindsey's original version to the Drudge Report but maybe a better song to send him would be Stevie's beautiful and haunting and once again timely...Desert Angel...

[Les]

I, too, heard Peacekeeper on the Drudge Report and found myself laughing that a song about a missle is an anti-war statement.

While that's an interesting theory that has been tossed around here on the boards to great discussion, that is not what Lindsey indicates the song is about. As succinctly as I can put it, Lindsey says the song is about how destructive events affect families and individuals and it's about wondering what the ideal of "peace" really means.

He said something interesting in the AOL Broadband interview about this song. He said that he kept it purposely ambiguous in part because he feels art should have an ambiguity, but also in part because if only one interpretation is possible, then it is probably bordering on propaganda, which isn't his intention.

Just wanted to toss that in...though it has little bearing on the larger discussion. Hehe.

[Bella Figura]

Hi Les, yes you're right, Lindsey has his own interpretation but his art is now out there for public consumption and someone turned me on to that interpretation of the song and I gotta go with it....

FYI, the US is testing our Peacekeeper Missles out in California this week!!! some kind of tune-up

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Bella Figura
But we are all tired of living in fear...this fear has been led by a media-feeding frenzy of terrorism, war and hate, exploiting the views of Bin Laden, Iraq and Korea and now to even those countries that are supposed to be our allies. So we are willing to support our troops (which btw, working class people and their sons and daughters make up the largest part of the military), our President (which btw I did not vote for but would never disrespect) and the probability we will have to fight to save our world and the values that it stands for by ourselves, again.

Is bombing the crap out of Iraq, two thirds of whose population is 22 or under, going to stop us from living in fear? We are bombing a nation of children. Would Osama bin Laden have become a problem for us if the Gulf War didn't happen? Would the Gulf War have to have happened if we hadn't armed Saddam to the teeth with assorted weapons, ballistic, chemical and biological? Would we have armed Saddam to the teeth if there had not been an Islamic revolution in Iran? Would the revolution have happened if we hadn't backed a tyrant hellbent on repressing the Iranian nation?

I could talk about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, take a trip to Indonesia, over to Africa to places like Angola, leap across the ocean to Argentina, Venezuela, Honduras, Cuba, etc. But I won't, lest anyone think I'm un-American for simply pointing out that it has never been in our interest to support democracy. By God, if it had, we might just have supported Castro after he threw out the US-backed dictator and turned to the Communist Soviets when we turned our back on him.

But I digress.

My point: What are we failing to foresee this time? We can see by looking at the history of our and British involvement in the Middle East that there is a reaction for every action. For that matter, we could go back to the Romans vs. the Ottomans.

This time we have no excuse. There has been plenty of analysis about the can of worms that may be opened with this war. Because make no mistake, just as each of our previous actions in the region has come back to bite us in the cu, so will this one. The sad part is that there are plenty of warning signs and our administration has chosen to ignore them. Our administration has chosen to ignore its CIA, its State Department and even some of its Defense officials.

Is it possible -- is it possible -- that our administration is wrong and the CIA, the State Department and half of our military superiors, as well as 90 percent of the world, are right? Does that possibility even enter the minds of people who are supporting this war?

Stefan is right. Irreparable harm has been done here to relationships between nations. I hope to God we don't live to pay dearly for our current actions.

Bella Figura, I know your heart is in the right place. And ultimately we are going to agree to disagree. I just hope you understand where I'm coming from.

[SmthngOfADreamr]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Is bombing the crap out of Iraq, two thirds of whose population is 22 or under, going to stop us from living in fear?

The short answer to your question here is obviously no. BUT - if you had phrased it differently, for example, "Will removing Saddam Hussein from power stop Americans from living in fear", I would say that it certainly couldn't hurt. After all, the goal of the war is to remove him from power, not to "bomb the crap out of Iraq." Granted, he is not the world's only threat, but he's right up there with the best of them.

The problem with that is, I'm still not sure if our feelings toward Saddam are a result of our government's propaganda against him, or if he is a viable threat. That is what keeps me, and probably many other people, on the fence somewhat.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by SmthngOfADreamr
The short answer to your question here is obviously no. BUT - if you had phrased it differently, for example, "Will removing Saddam Hussein from power stop Americans from living in fear", I would say that it certainly couldn't hurt. After all, the goal of the war is to remove him from power, not to "bomb the crap out of Iraq." Granted, he is not the world's only threat, but he's right up there with the best of them.

The problem with that is, I'm still not sure if our feelings toward Saddam are a result of our government's propaganda against him, or if he is a viable threat. That is what keeps me, and probably many other people, on the fence somewhat.

I know for a fact Saddam has never infringed on my freedom or threatened my safety, regardless of what out administration tells me. Dreamer, think about the unintended consequences of our past actions in the region. Maybe that will get you off the fence.

[Les]

Originally posted by Bella Figura
Hi Les, yes you're right, Lindsey has his own interpretation but his art is now out there for public consumption and someone turned me on to that interpretation of the song and I gotta go with it....

Certainly, whatever you like. I sort of suspect you're going with that interpretation in part to make your point to "someone," so I just thought I'd toss in an alternate point of view of the song from the artist himself, since the song can be interpretated any number of ways.

[SmthngOfADreamr]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I know for a fact Saddam has never infringed on my freedom or threatened my safety, regardless of what out administration tells me. Dreamer, think about the unintended consequences of our past actions in the region. Maybe that will get you off the fence.

I agree with you about the unintended consequenses of our past actions. That is a very, very good point.

I have a difficult time explaining how I feel about this matter, I think because my opinon changes so often. Something inherant within me feels that Saddam is a ticking timebomb (again, that's probably thanks to our gov't), and I just feel that as long as he is in power, we are somehow unsafe. I guess that is a bit of an irrational fear. But Carne, do you honestly feel that Saddam would not jump at the chance to provide those individuals who are more than willing to inflict harm upon Americans with the weapons to do it?

The sad thing is, as I have said before, the US can be its own worst enemy, and its not as if Saddam has never received any provocation from us to warrant him to want to do this.

I can see both sides of the argument clearly, and that's why when I hear about his alleged weapons and human rights violations, it really pushes me to the pro-war side because I think, why not just go in there and get rid of him? But as you noted, in addition to the fact that "war ain't pretty," there will most likely be several unforeseen ramifications of our actions. It's a tough decision to make. I just hope we're doing what's right.

[Gazza]

Gazza, I'm curious as to why releasing anti-war songs puts you off. I find it ballsy and necessary. The Rolling Stones were the only band to release an anti Gulf War song in 1991, and my respect for Mick and the boys grew exponentially as a result.

My respect for Mick has come from him just being a great performer, and The Stones writing fantastic songs. That's what I want from them - not their opinions on war.

It puts me off, because invariably they're saying nothing new, and just making sure their opinion is being heard. I couldn't care less what their opinions are personally. If the song is good though - it's good. But, lyrically it's not going to touch me like say "Wild Horses" does.

George Michael in particular has been bugging me these last few weeks. He's gone on every chat here in the UK speaking out against War and really looking like a bit of a fool imo. I think it's a shame when popstars get invited on shows to talk about their feelings on this War, when there are far better, and more well informed people to talk about the subject.

Saying all this though... The anti war music was much better back in the 70s. Who do we have now? Ms. Dynamite over here. Depressing times!

I don't want to get into a debate on this War... It's the same arguments, and counter arguments, thrown back and forth all the time, and the truth is - not one of us knows for sure what the end result will be - yet for some reason certain people speak like they do.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by SmthngOfADreamr
But Carne, do you honestly feel that Saddam would not jump at the chance to provide those individuals who are more than willing to inflict harm upon Americans with the weapons to do it?

I honestly think that if he wanted to, he could have already. It is highly unlikely, based on his persona, that he would want to "share the glory," if you will of striking at the US. If he could, he would have done so, but not through others. Also, there are conflicting reports over just what he does or does not have. If you watched Dick Cheney on Meet the Press on Sunday, you might have picked up a contradiction or two in his answers. It's just too bad that Tim Russert has turned into a cream puff and didn't hold his feet to the fire.

Check this out, from the Washington Post (which by the way has editorially endorsed going to war, as opposed to the New York Times):

Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq

by Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank

As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged -- and in some cases disproved -- by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports.

For months, President Bush and his top lieutenants have produced a long list of Iraqi offenses, culminating Sunday with Vice President Cheney's assertion that Iraq has "reconstituted nuclear weapons." Previously, administration officials have tied Hussein to al Qaeda, to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and to an aggressive production of biological and chemical weapons. Bush reiterated many of these charges in his address to the nation last night.

But these assertions are hotly disputed. Some of the administration's evidence -- such as Bush's assertion that Iraq sought to purchase uranium -- has been refuted by subsequent discoveries. Other claims have been questioned, though their validity can be known only after U.S. forces occupy Iraq.

In outlining his case for war on Sunday, Cheney focused on how much more damage al Qaeda could have done on Sept. 11 "if they'd had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed . . . biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax." He then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al Qaeda leaders "have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years."

But in October CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress that Hussein would not give such weapons to terrorists unless he decided helping "terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

In his appearance Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," the vice president argued that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." But Cheney contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was "only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons." Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who reported that "there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities."

ElBaradei also contradicted Bush and other officials who argued that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The IAEA determined that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons. ElBaradei argued that the tubes were for conventional weapons and "it was highly unlikely" that the tubes could have been used to produce nuclear material.

Cheney on Sunday said ElBaradei was "wrong" about Iraq's nuclear program and questioned the IAEA's credibility.

Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents. Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence, linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in Bush's State of the Union address.

In another embarrassing episode for the administration, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited evidence about Iraq's weapons efforts that originally appeared in a British intelligence document. But it later emerged that the British report's evidence was based in part on academic papers and trade publications.

Sometimes information offered by Bush and his top officials is questioned by administration aides. In his March 6 news conference, Bush dismissed Iraq's destruction of its Al Samoud-2 missiles, saying they were being dismantled "even as [Hussein] has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles." But the only intelligence was electronic intercepts that had individuals talking about being able to build missiles in the future, according to a senior intelligence analyst.

Last month, Bush spoke about a liberated Iraq showing "the power of freedom to transform that vital region" and said "a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region." But a classified State Department report put together by the department's intelligence and research staff and delivered to Powell the same day as Bush's speech questioned that theory, arguing that history runs counter to it.

In his first major speech solely on the Iraqi threat, last October, Bush said, "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work."

Inspectors have found that the Al Samoud-2 missiles can travel less than 200 miles -- not far enough to hit the targets Bush named. Iraq has not accounted for 14 medium-range Scud missiles from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but the administration has not presented any evidence that they still exist.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[dissention]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I knew I would get this predictable response. Yeah, the U.S. was wrong there, but that doesn't make Saddam right. According to this logic, Saddam could bomb America and it still would be justifiable!

War does indeed suck, and I am not blase about that or dismissive of such concerns. It is, however, justified sometimes and this is one of those times. I know I'm in the minority here but I feel somebody needs to say these things. This isn't about George Bush. It's about Saddam Hussein and I think a lot of people either forget that or choose to ignore it.

Hi Nancy,

I respect your opinion whoeheartedly and respect you for saying hat you feel, but I completely disagree. This IS about George Bush.

It is an attempt for him to take control of Iraq and, more importantly, its oil supply in order to further our position as a superpower. This war with Iraq will either make or break him. He has built it up so much that he has to go to war to save face. He hasn't justified it AT ALL.

Iraq hasn't threatened us in years. Bush is using the events of 9/11 to push forward with this war; masking it under patriotism and a fight against terrorism.

George Bush makes my skin crawl and it makes me feel ashamed that I live in a country that he is in charge of. I despise him and his entire administration of warmongers.

THIS WILL BE A WAR LIKE WE HAVE NEVER SEEN.

I do not support this war or our President. Not in my name.

[SmthngOfADreamr]

Very interesting article. With all the conflicting information, it's no wonder that I'm so confused about which way to go. Thanks for passing it on.