Moore said: "...the Constitution makes the president the Commander-in-Chief,
giving him control over the military, Congress has little direct say over where
and how the troops are deployed." Why has he not recommended that this
presidential power be taken away? – like right now!
We have a nut
case as president.
~ George X
would take a constitutional amendment, which at best would require several years
to be ratified.
Plan Means More Bloodshed
go to war or declare war against another sovereign nation for one of two reasons:
1. You are attacked without provocation, like, say, Pearl Harbor.
2. An ally by treaty is attacked without provocation and you go to help them.
Another form of this would be to be asked by a sovereign nation for help.
The ultimate goal
of either one of these reasons SHOULD BE to end the hostilities as soon as possible
either by the attacking side surrendering such, as in our Revolutionary or Civil
War, or a ceasefire arbitrated by some third party and then an effort to bring
some peace and stability and reason between the warring factions.
After WWII instead
of sending most of our soldiers home and shutting down our munitions factories
we kept our military large and immediately went into the so-called Cold War.
This was a war against an ideology, communism, not a nation, even though the
USSR and to some degree China were the personification of it.
So for almost
45 years we fought the "Cold War" against an ideology which finally collapsed
on its own. Did we win that war? And was it really necessary to spend all that
money to "win" that war? I don't think it had anything to do with war. The military
industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about needed an excuse to continue
making war profits so they needed a "war," so they got one. So we fought in
Korea, war profits were good....
But along comes
a ceasefire for Korea.... So now what? Another threat of Communism in Vietnam
and another "war" and more arms and profits. 10-plus years of lots of profits
and arms buildup until the fall of Saigon in 1975. So now what do they do? Back
to the old "commie threat" (Red China, etc.), bigger missiles, more planes,
So for 15-plus
more years more profits until quite to everyone's surprise communism effectively
collapses as a world threat, Clinton gets elected and peace threatens to break
out. (Oh, I almost forgot the first Gulf War, a good little war that increased
profits but ended too quickly). No need for big missiles, planes etc. Panic
sets in among the arms merchants. How do they keep the war machine going if
there is no threat? Along comes a think tank run by a bunch of neocons called
the Project For a New American Century, formed in 1995, that advocates a foreign
policy of American military superiority in the world.
So the arms merchants
see a new chance to keep their war profits going. But Clinton is a Democrat
and surely will not go along with this. So wait until he is out of office, put
in a friendly dumb president in 2000, a Republican of course, and start the
new century out with great expectations and the "war party" in power. Along
comes 9/11 and lo and behold the "Global War on Terror," an arms merchant's
dream: a hundred years of war profits, almost forever. So how do you keep the
"Global War on Terror" going for a hundred years? Make sure there are more terrorists
out there under every bush, scare the crap out of the American people so they
will continue to support a big military budget and life goes on.
So is Iraq a success
for the arms merchants? You better believe it. The War in Iraq has fueled more
terrorists, which will keep the Global War on Terror going for years and was
just an opening shot in a wider war with Iran, Syria, etc. All to keep the war
machine busy and increase profits. Remember, "war is good for the economy."
So what to do
about Iraq? The arms merchants could care less. They are chomping at the bit
to go elsewhere.
So we can continue
supporting the president in another course-change in Iraq and hope for the best
or we can impeach him and Cheney, Mr. Arms Merchant, and maybe have a chance
to break the arms merchants once and forever.
~ Bill Keyes
Shi'ites Have Their Revenge
find this quite a simplistic analysis of the real facts behind the reason for
the date chosen for such an execution.
The article seems
to infer that the execution of Saddam on the Eid-Al-Adha was done on purpose
by the Shi'ites to take revenge on Saddam. Maybe we should dig further into
why it was done on such a date? ... The Eid-Al-Adha is celebrated by all Muslims,
whether Sunni or Shi'ia. It is the last day of the holy pilgrimage to Mecca
and all Muslims are required to sacrifice a lamb in honor or Prophet Abraham.
There is no distinction here. Further, the execution took place in the "Green
Zone," the American base. Who were the real individuals who ordered the execution
on that day, the American Government or the Government of the Prime Minister
of Iraq? Who were the masked men? ... How many Shi'ites were really celebrating
or dancing around the dead bodies?
Why would the
Iraqi Government of Nouri Al-Maliki want to create more division between the
Shi'ites and Sunnis, which he knew would have a direct repercussion on his government
and instill further violence? Also we forget that the execution of Saddam was
conducted not in a fair trial, but in a kangaroo court, where the judges where
chosen by the U.S. Government. Saddam was tried only for the Shi'ite massacres
in Dujail. The gassing of the Kurds and the killing of 1.5 million Shi'ite
Iranian soldiers and civilians, including the use of chemical and biological
weapons, went untried.
As Robert Fisk
rightfully put it:
Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed
for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the
components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds?
We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam's weird trial, forbade
any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him.
Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive
war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability."
seems to forget that the Iranians were Shi'ites, and Iran did not get its day
for the revenge of Saddam's criminal acts against their people. The last sentence
of the article demonstrates why – because it would expose our culpability!
I want to know
where is the footage of all the Shi'ites celebrating this execution (though they
would have a right to do so) around the world, beside the continuous picture
that CNN wants to show of a group in Dearborn, Michigan (and we don't even know
how many people were involved in that celebration – a handful, 20, 30,
I tend to believe
that this was another method of creating further divide between the world's
Muslim majority who are Sunni, and the Shi'ites – in particular Iran. Since
Iran is now the next demon that the U.S. and Israel are both after. The U.S.
has to break what Ahmadinejad has been able to do – creating unity among
all Muslims against the U.S. occupation in Iraq and Israel's occupation of Palestine
and its massacres this summer in Lebanon. The so-called (puppet) "moderate Arab
leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan" also wish nothing more than to see
a Sunni revolt against the Shi'ites. ...
So we go back
to the question: it is quite ominous, and illogical for the Government of Iraq
to have chosen this day. Who was really behind it is the real question.
~ M. Homayouni
One of the reasons
why U.S. and coalition troops should move out of Iraq now is that once gone
the responsibilities for what is happening in Iraq will be much clearer. I agree
entirely that the U.S.-led invasion created the conditions for a civil war,
I was among the many who opposed such decision, but today those who are actively
participating in it are the Iraqis.
was put on trial for one specific crime against a Shi'ite village, not for what
he did to the entire nation. The trial was held in Iraq, it was the Iraqi government
not the U.S. government who put him on trial and decided to execute him.
As for the videos
of his execution, which I find deeply distasteful and cruel, we now know that
it was an Iraqi officer who passed them on to YouTube.
I know it is hard
to accept that one's own country is in the grip of civil war and that to blame
a foreign power can be comforting, but the reality is very different. Those
who are in charge of today's ethnic warfare are people like Moqtada al-Sadr
who benefit from chaos. Iraq should say no to those people and seek a reconciliation.